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

Taking (stealing really) money from wealthy, productive people is immoral. Saying Jesus said to care of the poor as an excuse for income transfers is idiotic and theocratic. Wealthy people should give to the poor, but they shouldn't be forced to by the end of a gun via the government and IRS.

People should (and most do) give to help out the poor. But the should do it because they want to, not because they are forced to. That's not charity at all and that's not what Jesus was talking about.

John Edwards uses religious reasoning when he talks about "income inequality". That's as much of a threat of theocracy as anything Bush does.

Mtn Dew wrote:

Taking (stealing really) money from wealthy, productive people is immoral. Saying Jesus said to care of the poor as an excuse for income transfers is idiotic and theocratic. Wealthy people should give to the poor, but they shouldn't be forced to by the end of a gun via the government and IRS.

People should (and most do) give to help out the poor. But the should do it because they want to, not because they are forced to. That's not charity at all and that's not what Jesus was talking about.

John Edwards uses religious reasoning when he talks about "income inequality". That's as much of a threat of theocracy as anything Bush does.

Good points. Mandatory taxation as a religious principle is silly. However, I would say that there is an underlying hatred that guides war whereas taxation is more misguided altruism. The first would be more of a threat than the latter.

IMO, I think this thread has jumped its shark. However, I appreciate the comments in response to my post, Tom, and kind of feel it would be rude to not reply.

For future reference (and I am just saying in case it isn't clear) a lot of times I'll ask questions not to make a point about what I think, but rather to see what you think? Your comment about me having "wise doubts" was funny!

I think your first paragraph somewhat contradicts itself. You indicate that the rich are inherently greedy and won't give unless forced, BUT then immediately following that you say that some like Gates and Buffet (they fit in your definition of rich, correct?) will give no matter what. Hmmm, I think I know what you trying to convey, but I am not sure that broad stereotypes make for effective arguments. If I say rich people are greedy or poor people steal 1) I end up applying this to everyone in the group, 2) I imply that the opposite group doesn't stuggle with the same problem, and 3) I infer that these people can't change. Do you think this is true?

Anyway, if we taxed less, do you think there would be more or less societal pressure on the wealthy to give? Does societal pressure help shape someone's legacy? In general, fo you think wealthy people are are influenced by societal pressure?

Moving on to the school prayer vs. taxation. All I am saying is that I don't think those are very analgous, though I recognize that I am assuming we have the same definition of what prayer is in order for you to catch my drift, so perhaps that's why that paragraph maybe confusing... that, OR I just wrote it poorly (which definitely could be the case).

Lastly, I don't think it is wrong at all to look at and critique the behaviors of others (like you have with Bush)to help figure out what is right and good, and the best way to move forward. So, it is clear you feel it was bad that Bush said Jesus was is "favorite philosopher". And, it seems your issue is more with Bush's inability to follow that philosophy rather than that the philosophy is bad to begin with. Is that true? If it is, then it seems that while criticising others, it is also right then that you/me would need to be internally critiquing ourselves. Otherwise, wouldn't we be just as guilty as whom we're accusing? So, then how should we move forward?

Believe me, I have opinions when someone is doing wrong, and I DO think there are steps that can be taken to change things. BUT, at the same time, I am more impressed when it is clear that someone is not brashly pointing fingers, because in my own life (in which I believe a lot of people would think is pretty clean), there is PLENTY of wrong. I've seen enough "good" people in the same situation to believe thats true for everyone.

Anyway, what is the best way to make these changes (like getting rid of a leader who apparantly does not follow your or his proclaimed favorite philosopher)?

The teaching that we are all sinners is indeed central to Christ's message. But that does not mean that we are all equally sinful, only that man's capacity for sin is universal. The architects of the holocaust were arguably more sinful than you are. Christ's two rules you refer were not rules but the foundation for moral existence: Love thy God and Love thy Neighbor. Of course, interpreting this is the context of actual life here on earth is the tough part. Christian theology cannot be reduced to a bumper sticker.

From Love thy Neighbor flow countless rules that Christ certainly did not imply weren't necessary. Christ was not rebelling against rules, only against hypocrisy. Since man is made in the image of God, the power to reason must not be an accident or something man can deny. Man uses reason to make judgments on what is good and evil. Christ said Love thy Neighbor, so man must make judgments in the course of applying this rule. These judgments become rules themselves. Presumably one is harming thy neighbor when stealing, or committing adultery, etc...

Saying Christ only gave us two rules is entirely missing the point and is usually invoked by people unwilling to do the hard intellectual work understanding Christian ethics demands.

How should the US respond to a Nuke Attack? IN SPADES.

Agreed - this started out as a pretty intriguing thread about U.S. response to a nuke threat. Quite predictable that it should turn into the same tired out war between the conservative and liberal viewpoints. Come on, people, clear the fog of partisanship out of your brains and get back on topic!

If different sins are more heinous than others in the eyes of God, please explain the different punishments we get for the different sins. Please don't use Catholic tradition for this, but actual scripture. Christ did only give two rules by which all other tenets can be derived. This is scripture. I don't know why I'm debating this with a Catholic, as I've said you all have invented so much you obviously have no clue of the original meaning but what you've said is blatantly wrong. Without observing Christ as a deity, one can easily derive a philosophy from statements attributed to Him. To argue otherwise is silly and against virtually every University in the country as most of them teach Christianity as Philosophy as well as other religions. ButI'm sure you know better.

? wrote:

How should the US respond to a Nuke Attack? IN SPADES.

I think the point was, if it's a terrorist attack, how do you know where to strike back? If Tim McVeigh had done his bombing with a nuclear device, what is our response? Probably pretty much the same. But our country would mourn much heavier.

As some have pointed out, it would difficult to obtain a nuclear device without the help of some developed nation. But could it be the black market leak from a former soviet republic? Who is responsible? A lot of questions need to be answered before we determine our response.

For example, is Suddam Hussein responsible for 9/11? Of course! He was directly responsible and that's why we needed to invade Iraq...to fight terrorism. Anyone who denies this is a godless traitor. Just ask Ann Coulter.

Sorry, I went from trying to mount a reasonable response to attacking a conservative pundit. Is she a pundit? I'm not sure what the fvck she is.

Is being godless a bad thing?

Tviewer wrote:

Well in some circles it's trendy to say we ARE ostracized.

Like every circle outside the US.

I was in Kenya after Bush's War started (aka, the Second Gulf war). None of the Kenyans could understand why the US was being the bully to attack a country that had not attacked it. Granted, they're much more content to tolerate a tyrant like Saddam than people in the north atlantic part of world, but still I quickly realized what I already suspected... Bush's War is a foreign relation disaster for the US that will take decades and decades to overcome.

TViewer wrote:The guy, named Baere or something like that...sporting a C. Everett Koop-style beard, claims that the US WILL suffer a domestic nuclear attack within 'the next couple of years' c/o al-Qaida.

Did anyone else see this guy today? I want to make sure I didn't imagine it.

Let me guess. He's a republican. I find it interesting that republicans use scare tactics like this to justify an unnecessary war in Iraq. (Dick Cheney is a master at this.) Meanwhile the democrats use scare tactics about global warming to defend the environment. (Al Gore is a master at this.) There's definitely some truth to both scenarios, but exaggerated scare tactics end up undermining the truth of the real issue at stake.

cosmopolitan wrote:

Like every circle outside the US.

I was in Kenya after Bush's War started (aka, the Second Gulf war). None of the Kenyans could understand why the US was being the bully to attack a country that had not attacked it. Granted, they're much more content to tolerate a tyrant like Saddam than people in the north atlantic part of world, but still I quickly realized what I already suspected... Bush's War is a foreign relation disaster for the US that will take decades and decades to overcome.

We're not as unpopular as people think. To some extent, unpopularity is a burden any sole superpower would have to bear. People love to hate us, but they sure like us when they need us.

It will not take decades and decades. A lot of the anti-Americanism is superficial. Did anyone happen to see the 60 minutes piece last week on the Kurds in Irbil? As bad as the Iraq war has become, it was nice to see that some positive has come out of it. The Kurds love us. The Kurds are freer and more prosperous now than they have been in a long, long time. And they won't forget who freed them from tyranny.

As far as Kenya goes, I've spent a lot of time there as well. It is true that the knee-jerk response is 'why would America invade a country that hadn't attacked it?' Put aside for a moment that most Kenyans on the street could not articulate the whole Iraqi aggression problem going back to 1990, it was interesting on my most recent discussion with Kenyans on Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia that they all thought it was a good idea because the Islamists are bad and deserved it, even though the Islamists never attacked Ethiopia. A tad of hypocrisy here, perhaps?

It's interesting how people, any people, will support an invasion if they judge it to be in their interest.

You folks who were in Kenya should have asked them what they thought of the Somalia business in the early 90's.

Hindsight, I know.

Can you say "Black Hawk Down"?

To political analyxer, To your question The guy we are talking about worked in the Clinton Admin. Nice try though.

very good points. You're right that many Kenyans are not as informed on politics. They see much smaller news stories in newspapers, on the radio, and on TV. But we Americans see our news through American lenses (especially those that watch the Elephant News Network), which was my main point about Bush's War being a foreign policy disaster. Now we're facing a serious problem with Iran, but we've lost all credibility in the world (and even among many of our own citizens) so that we don't have the support to deal forcefully with a real problem like Iran if the situation gets worse.

Funny that the poster above mentions black hawk down and Somalia. That set up a situation in Rwanda where the US/UN should have intervened but didn't. Nearly a million tutsis died in one of the worst genocides since the holocaust. But the US wouldn't dare step in and do anything (even though most of the killings were done with machetes, not guns) because dead US soldiers had just been dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Our people absolutely would not have supported our intervention in another part of Africa (i.e., Rwanda) at that time because of that.

As I mentioned, other countries of the world are much more content to tolerate a tyrant (like Idi Amin). Remember, the third world countries are called that because politically they were neither capitalist democracies nor communist. They're a hodge-podge of political systems that don't always appreciate America's capitalist democratic ways as much as we do. Jomo Kenyatta was asked after leading Kenyan independence in the 50s if he would be a capitalist or a communist, he declared, "I am a Kenyan."

looks like they really hate us:

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/070223/photos_pl_afp/39a1241bf4a0f5ba6ff2aec168df8b0a

boy it would be nice to read more stories like that, im suer the msm would love to report on it.

political analyzer; You really need to get your facts staight. The slaughter in Rwanda could have been prevented if the UN had just a sliver of morality. They had troops on the ground and its commander, a Belgian begged the UN higher ups to let them intercede but the big wigs at the UN said let the massacre proceed. Clinton and his gutless crew come in a bit later as the butchery was going on. Madeline Albright under Clintons consent said she wasnt sure if the massacre could be tecnically defined as genocide. She just was not sure that the events unfolding actually met the definition of the word genocide. Therefore Clinton said he really couldnt send troops.

Cowards with no real moral compass are really what the UN and Clintons admin were all about.