Fox News "guest" on today's Neil Cavuto show.

Stone Keith wrote:

You, sir, are no economist, that's for sure.

Q: How many conservative economists does it take to change a light bulb?

A1: None. The darkness will cause the light bulb to change by itself.

A2: None. If it really needed changing, market forces would have caused it to happen.

A3: None. If the government would just leave it alone, it would screw itself in.

A4. None. "There is no need to change the light bulb. All the conditions for illumination are in place.

A5. None, because, look! It's getting brighter! It's definitely getting brighter !!!

A5. None; they're all waiting for the unseen hand of the market to correct the lighting disequilibrium.

Indeed, a MOMENTOUS occasion on Letsrun! (actually, I feel kind of bad for just hopping in at the very end... I coulda/shoulda just read... good stuff to think about).

Keep up the good fight, Unknowit, win that Mom-in-law over with luuuuvvvv and don't forget she gave the world your beyootyful wife!

Neb wrote:

Is this actually a political debate that has people respecting each other at the end? I didn't realize such a thing was possible ; )

Well, it looks like it was. Thank you Keith (Olbermann?) Stone for disrupting that debate with more Communist "humor."

Called out and yet Keith Stone still goes to the hyperbolic extremisms to "prove" his point rather than engaging in a real dialogue.

You slammed conservatives for needing things doled out in soundbites and then you just keep parroting liberal soundbites manufactured for unthinking progressives such as yourself.

Keep enjoying your spin and come back tomorrow with more witty quips harvested from a full day of listening to Air America - the just as bad lefty version of Fox News.

I Know These Things to be True wrote:

Called out and yet Keith Stone still goes to the hyperbolic extremisms to "prove" his point rather than engaging in a real dialogue.

Real dialog with someone that get's their information from Faux News is like "real" sex with an inflatable doll. It's only worth the trouble for the cheap thrill.

This is essentially correct, but the forces of globalization, technology, and innovation, in addition to ever freer capital markets, probably have more to do with the secular move toward tepid inflation than monetary policy alone. However, Volker's monetary policy in the 80s, along with fiscal stimuli during the Reagan era, paved the way for the structural economic ebullience we enjoyed from the late 80s through today. I will make one more comment and then I will leave this board, thankful for most who shared their views. If the government was held to the same productivity-engendering standards as the private sector, we would have absolutely no taxing problem in this country, NONE. That is the crux of my entire argument.

"Liberal Joke"

Sticky wages my friend.

BTW, take the partial of the teenage population with respect to the homosexual population. Then the partial of total population with respect to the number of people attending the little march on washington a few weeks ago. Look for similarity. Comparing the two is actually very interesting. Turns out that numbers are similar and say a lot about our country.

Let me just say that this argument/suggestion implied in your questions, that if maybe we eliminated most re-distribution of wealth, the rich would step up and donate like crazy to charities to help the poor is laughable. Many of the very rich got that way because they are greedy, and want to hang onto as much money as they can. Others, like Gates, Buffet, etc, will donate to charities whether or not they face high taxes.

Ok, here you express some doubts about this concept. Those are wise doubts.

I am not sure where you were going with all that, but let me say:

1) many conservatives don't just want "school prayer" of whatever type one desires. They would LOVE it if the principal could start each public school day with "praise Jesus." Absolutlely. They are for Christian expression of relligion, period. Oh sure, they will accept other religions if they have to, but they are not fighting for that.

2) Look, the Jesus hypocrisy that Neb is talking about boils down to this: George Bush, during a political debate, said that "Jesus Christ" was his favorite philosopher. This is insanity. Has he ever read ANY of Jesus' philosophy/teachings?? Did Jesus believe in tax cuts for the rich? Did Jesus believe in pre-emptive strikes on your enemy (I thought it was more along the lines of LOVING your enemy) Did Jesus believe strongly in the Death Penalty, as Bush does?? Did Jesus believe in winning political battles with dirty tricks?? Did Jesus believe in polluting the environment for the sake of giving breaks to one's friend's in Big Business?? Did Jesus believe in lying to his followers to get them to support him??

Ok, I think you see my point: very little that Bush does as president matches the philosophy of Jesus. And maybe no politician or commander in chief can be a follower of Jesus and get his job done, but Bush has fallen farther short of Jesus's words in his life than many, and yet he dares say that "Jesus is his favorite philsopher." It just boggles the mind he could say that with a straight face. Philosophy should not be just something to read and nod your head at, it should be lived. There is very little that is Christian about Bush's policies, and yet he kissed Jesus's ass to get the Religious Right on his side and win elections. A every disingenuous and un-Jesus thing to do.

Neb wrote:

Is this actually a political debate that has people respecting each other at the end? I didn't realize such a thing was possible ; )

Yeah, I enjoyed the discussion a lot, even though I haven't contributed to it since way back.

One thing that I think might be missing is that you both were discussing big picture ideologies, for the most part. If we get down to the details, are there some areas we can clean up that we can all agree on? I think there are. Baby steps in a positive direction seem to be how things are actually done in the real world.

Liberals and Conservatives alike BE MEN!!!! IGNORE KEITH STONE HE IS NOT LIBERAL, HE IS RETARDED! PLEASE DO LIBERALS A FAVOR AND JUST IGNORE THIS GUY. I AM A HARDCORE LIBERAL BUT I HATE THIS GUY MORE THAN ANY CONSERVATIVE! I PLEAD WITH YOU CONSERVATIVES, DONT BASE NORMAL LIBERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE RAMBLINGS OF KEITH STONE!

I just stumbled upon this stuff but I've got to say, Tom Bradycardia (love the name) has just posted one of the best posts I've ever read. "Did Jesus believe in pre-emptive strikes on your enemy"... as far as I know original and so apt.

brawn wrote:

Liberals and Conservatives alike BE MEN!!!! IGNORE KEITH STONE HE IS NOT LIBERAL, HE IS RETARDED! PLEASE DO LIBERALS A FAVOR AND JUST IGNORE THIS GUY. I AM A HARDCORE LIBERAL BUT I HATE THIS GUY MORE THAN ANY CONSERVATIVE! I PLEAD WITH YOU CONSERVATIVES, DONT BASE NORMAL LIBERAL ARGUMENTS ON THE RAMBLINGS OF KEITH STONE!

All caps, I'm impressed. You most definitely must be a closet conservative.

Jesus wasn't a philosopher at all. If you believe it, he's the Son of God who came to preach about the kingdom of God. He never wrote a word that we know of. The Gospels were written down many years after his death.

Jesus also didn't preach about politics. The Gospels are full of instances where the Pharisees and others try to trick him into taking a position on some political question of the day. He dismisses these attempts: "render to Caeser what is Caeser's", etc...

So, it is sort of foolish to assume what Jesus's position would be on the U.S. tax code, or the death penalty, or a particular war. Thinkers no less than St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas have written eloquently on Christ's message and how it doesn't preclude his followers from making war, if necessary. "Love your enemies" does not mean you stand by and do nothing while your enemies attempt to destroy you or other innocent people.

Jesus was quite the philosopher. You don't need to write something down in order to be considered a philosopher. Jesus specifically taught it is best not to defend yourself much less go on the offensive. You might disagree with this - I do - but it is a philosophy. He said to pay whatever taxes you were supposed to because money was worldly and thus it should be rendered to the leaders of this world. He taught that you needed to be willing to give up everything in order to reach happiness. "It is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle...". These are all part of a philosophy. It seems being reluctant is a good idea since you have no clue about philosophy.

realitybreak wrote:

Jesus was quite the philosopher. You don't need to write something down in order to be considered a philosopher. Jesus specifically taught it is best not to defend yourself much less go on the offensive. You might disagree with this - I do - but it is a philosophy. He said to pay whatever taxes you were supposed to because money was worldly and thus it should be rendered to the leaders of this world. He taught that you needed to be willing to give up everything in order to reach happiness. "It is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle...". These are all part of a philosophy. It seems being reluctant is a good idea since you have no clue about philosophy.

No. Have you ever taken a philosophy course? What you describe are examples of a moralist, perhaps, but not a philosopher in the sense of the Greek ideal. Philosophy is ultimately an intellectual or contemplative discipline.

Christ was talking about faith. "Believe in me and you shall be saved". That's not a philosophically defendable position. I'm not dissin Christ - I'm a practicing Catholic. Just saying, Christ was no philosopher just as Buddha was no philosopher. Philosophy is about the search for truth through the exercise of reason and logic, not just a set of rules dictated from on high on how to live a life.

Bush was wrong in saying Christ was a philosopher. That's probably because Bush has never read a real philosopher.

One of my degrees is in Philosophy. Every undergrad curriculum for a Philosophy major includes a religious studies class. Why is this? All religions are manifestations of a certain Philosophy. Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Muslims all have a prevailing philosophy that their doctrines espouse. As a Catholic, it makes sense you wouldn't know this as very few Catholics practice anything remotely similar to what Christ taught - conefession (find that in the Bible as Catholics practice it) - so I can see why you wouldn't be familiar with his philosophy. If you think Jesus preached a "set of rules" please enumerate them as in reality what he did was die stripping the rules of the Pharisees and Sadduccees away and allowing people to discern for themselves how to act. Remember his examples of using discernment for the Sabbath and Eunachs. Of course, the Cathloics ARE the resurection of the Pharisees so that was a bit of a waste of time but the Philosophy remains. I agree that Bush probably never read a philosopher - including the sayings of Christ.

Fine. We're not going to come to agreement on Jesus as a philosopher.

But no need to Catholic bash on here. It's comforting to know you've arrogated to yourself the wisdom to discern who and who are not the 'resurrection of the Pharisees'.

In my judgment, Christ did a tad bit more in his ministry than "allowing people to discern for themselves how to act." For example, when he saved the adultress from death by stoning, he certainly exposed the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. But the passage closes with Christ forgiving the woman and then telling her to "go and commit this sin no more." A reasonable interpretation of that passage in the Gospel is that Christ, being the Son of God, was in fact stating that adultery is a sin that should be avoided. Therefore, that could be most reasonably be interpreted as a rule to live by. If the woman had done nothing wrong, why would she need forgiveness in the first place?

That's just one example. If you think Christ didn't lay down some rules, I'm afraid you haven't read the Gospel very well. Christ's message is one of love and forgiveness, but there is such a thing as Sin. It is real and not simply a matter of opinion. The woman didn't have the option to "discern" for herself whether adultery was a sin or not.

An interesting quote I found this morning by the man who helped to bring slavery to an end in England.

"I fear for the future of authentic faith in our country. We live in a time when the common man in our country is thoroughly influenced by the current climate in which the cultural and educational elite propagates an anti-Christian message... Is it any wonder then that the spiritual condition of our country is of little concern to those who don’t even educate their own children about true Christianity? Their conduct reflects their absence of concern, not only for the state of Christianity in their own country, but also for the need to communicate the message of Christ to those in other parts of the world who have not heard this truth.

Some might say that one's faith is a private matter and should not be spoken of so publicly. They might assert this in public, but what do they really think in their hearts? The fact is, those who say such things usually don't even have a concern for faith in the privacy of their interior lives. If you could see their hearts, you would find no trace of authentic faith. God has no place among the sources of hopes, fears, joys or sorrows in their lives. They might be thankful for their health, success, wealth and possessions, but they give no thought to the possibility that these are all signs of God’s provision. If they do give credit to God, it is usually done in some perfunctory way that reveals that their words have no sincerity.

When their conversations get really serious, you will see how little of their Christianity has anything to do with the faith taught by Jesus. Everything becomes subjective. Their conduct is not measured against the standard set by the gospel. They have developed their own philosophies, which they attempt to pawn off as Christianity," - William Wilberforce, "A Practical View of the Prevailing Religious System of Professed Christians in the Higher and Middle Classes of this Country Contrasted with Real Christianity" (1797).