1? 2? 3? There Goes Another

in jd's dangerously uninformed and naive world view, I'm both stupid and evil.

why all of these babies weren't saved during Clinton's 8 years. He wasn't a Republican and he certainly wasn't a Christian so why wasn't the problem resolved back then? He dismantled the military and raised taxes like pew wanted and still the babies were dying. What's wrong with this picture?

-- I don't recall that in the bible
that every problem in the world is ours to resolve?--

For your edification, here is Luke:10 27 -37. Enjoy.

The Parable of the Good Samaritan
25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"
26 "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?"
27 He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'[c]; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[d]"
28 "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live."
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"
30 In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. 35The next day he took out two silver coins[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'
36 "Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"
37 The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him."
Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."

--Do you or do you not support federal funding of "faith based initiatives"?
A simple yes or no will do.?

Maybe. Depends on what we?re talking about. I think it?s a case by case decision.

--According to you, we're going to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, stop the war in Iraq and let the chips fall where they may, dismantle the military, and prevent Congress from allocating funds for all projects since all projects have some pork built in. Oh, and I assume that you want to remove Congress totally since it's filled with "a bumper crop of hypocrites and liars". I assume that you would prefer a dictatorship? Or is that only if the dictator happens to be an atheist Democrat??

You have quite an imagination.

-- Now we have billions and billions of dollars to spend on your poor dying children. ?

Their not particularly my children, but watch out, you?re providing a fine example of what it means to be a bogus, right wing ?Christian.?

--How would you suggest the money be distributed so it is fair and equitable for all concerned and remove all possibility of fraud or theft? ?

I?ve put in a call to Tom Delay. I?m sure he?ll know about fair and equitable for all concerned and removing all possibility of fraud or theft. Nice try pb, but people who live in glass houses shouldn?t throw stones.

--And please remember that any plan you come up with has to be done in less than six months because that's about as long as the country would last after making your well thought out changes.--

They aren?t my well thought out changes, they?re yours. You came up with them.

Jd, you conveniently absolve yourself and your leaders once again. Why are you carrying water for hypocrites who are abetting the mass starvation of millions of innocent children?

As the old saying goes "As certain as death and taxes". I can not stomach another attempt by you to gratify your own ego by making others feel guilty (In case you haven?t figured out, I am an atheist). I know that most of these things are out of my control and I detest you insinuating that I am a bad person because of it, fucking hypocrite [b]get off your bloody high horse[/b]. I will save you the trouble epw, turn off your monitor, block your ears and hum loudly for you will not like what I have to say.

As I said this is out of our control, we can?t fix the world, hell we (human beings/homo sapiens) are what is wrong with it. People die every day, disease, famine, old age, war, but our numbers are still increasing. This is cold yes, but more children are born than killed and it is naive in the extreme to think we can save all of them.

World wide population is currently at 6 billion plus, we are reaching the limit of what this planet can support. So many people a dying in natural disasters (Which I would wager aren?t that much more powerful than 100 years ago) because there are a lot more people to kill. Several experts (diplomatic, environmental scientists) have predicted that very soon (20 to 40 years) a tragedy will befall the human race which kills a large portion of the global population. The two most popular guesses of how are famine and disease. I?d put a considerable sum on the fact that everyone?s favourite method of death, war will play a good part in whatever awaits us.

Predicting doom,
As certain as death and taxes.

but it would have been a lot closer by now if the governments had limited their interference, and it's clear that the standard of living is higher in inverse proportion to government interference.

Peope want freedom... freedom from as well as freedom to. In a free market, people can have any standard of living they are willing to work for. The only people who would oppose such a system are the dishonest and the lazy.

sarcasm. One thing I've noticed about most liberals: Everything good that happens is always their own doing, but everything bad that happens is always someone else's fault. I suppose one has to fill an empty soul with something!

As you already have these facts, why don?t you post them? The records will show that our previous governments were also reprehensible. I?ll just say two wrongs don't make a right. Do the deplorable aid records of previous American administrations, Democrat and Republican, excuse the criminal indifference of the current bumper crop of "family values" "conservative" Republicans?

These self-proclaimed paradigms of "Christian morality" are standing by and allowing a child to starve to death every three seconds of every day of every year. And while they presume to lecture the world on "moral" behavior; with their silence and obfuscation, they are abetting mass starvation on a horrific scale. They are conveniently Christian when it comes to scaring up votes, nothing more, nothing less.

Yet, they go to church every Sunday. They smile and wink as their business cronies gorge themselves at the public trough. They talk about compassion and tolerance, but refuse to fund all birth control and disease control initiatives, save those that fit their narrow concept of proper sexual behavior. And irony of ironies, every year they toss more money down the drain than it would take to save the lives of those millions of starving children. In these respects, the current crew stands alone in their arrogant, repulsive hypocrisy. And yes, for this I find them beneath contempt. I would welcome a real change of heart from the President on down. And when the Dems eventually gain control, I promise I will be just as critical on this subject.

---Not in this country. But in countries run by corrupt dictators, socialists, etc.?

-Does it matter? This is irrelevant.

You really don't even want a solution, as it would do away with your shrine.

Solutions have been offered, which you and those like you refuse to accept. You are exactly like the dictators in those countries who won't let aid workers in. Therefore you and those like you are responsible for any lack of action. 1 2 3!

---This country still gives more to the rest of the world than the other industrial nations put together. Add in private charities and the gap gets wider. --

"Yes, in terms of absolute dollars, I'm sure you're right. Not that this means much since we are also the wealthiest of all nations by far."

So the next logical leap is that other nations could be wealthy by being more like us. And if the problem is as urgent as you think your rantings suggest, it's obvious that we must force these countries to change to be like us... by using whatever force is necessary, right?

You are not providing a single arguement of how people "who wear Christianity on their sleeves" are not being Christian.

Every group can only do so much. There are many problems here in America (many caused directly by Democrats policies) that are valid causes.

You have intentionally made it sound that just because ruthless dictators and warlords are restricting food and aid to uneducated people that are making the CHOICE to bring kids into a world of starvation, that it is somehow the job of all Christians to topple the corrupt governments and feed the children of these abusive parents.

I do things for LOCAL charities. Many I know do things to help real people with real needs. Can't help everyone.

There is nothing unChristian about not saving everyone, especially from something that has been going on for generations and had less done to resolve it by the godless Democrats.

This is not a case of a hijacking of faith. Abortion , gays and whatever other cause you may support are all in line with the traditional views of the Church. People growing up don't realize that organized religion is not an ala-cart where you pick and choose which parts you will follow, unless you wish to make your own break away branch. (breakaway religious groups get shot and burned out by Democrats, so I don't recommend it)

If you don't like the established teaching of a religion, then you are not a part of that established religion. Make your own.

Just because you don't LIKE the established teachings, does not make them all wrong. There can not be a conflict betweent the laws of man and the laws of God. Laws of God do not allow you to violate the laws of Man. On the other hand, just because you CAN do something based on the laws of man, does not mean you SHOULD do them.

Anyone that uses causal abortions as birthcontrol is a dispicable human, and should be loathed, but not jailed.

exactly why it is these people after generations have never lifted themselves up to be self reliant.

Tell me exactly what the Democrats that were in power were doing to elminate this problem, that the Republicans are not now doing.

Throwing a bunch of pictures of kids on a flier does not do anything to resolve an issue.

To say that just stupidly and blindly throwing MORE money at this symptoms will do anything but make the problem continue is dishonest.

As for your sneer at "phony" Christians, you have done nothing to show anything of the sort, nor to hold up an REAL Christian example from previous administrations.

The FACT that we give more means nothing? We either are giving more than anyone else or we are NOT giving more than anyone else.

To weakly sit back and cry that more is not enough based on other countries can't afford as much is petty and ungrateful.

None of this "we can afford more" bs. What about all the other things people like YOU expect the government to pay for? Should we take money away from our schools and give it to people that are doing nothing to improve their own situation? Our kids are more important than their kids are, when it comes to spending OUR money.

Should we not up the money into roads?

Should we increase the tax on these rich people you hate so much? Remember, if it wasn't for a rich person owning that business, you would not be working now, unless you "work" for the government. But then again, THEIR checks get paid for by the same rich people, although that money was stolen by the government instead of freely negotiated in exchange for services rendered by an employee.

I do not understand the hate and jelousy people like you have for people that have worked hard to be successful.

It is your hypocrisy that is shining bright.

but three lefts do.....

When you stated that one of the problems with the current administration was that they "subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans" weren't you advocating that taxes be increased for these individuals? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "contribute to the hundreds of billions being poured into the boy emperor's Iraqi adventure" - weren't you advocating that we end the war in Iraq and remove the possibility of spending additional billions of dollars? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "help fund a war machine that soaks up more money than the total spent by all of our allies and enemies combined" - weren't you advocating that we cut military spending which in effect dismantles the miltary? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to benefit "connected" business cronies of our elected ?representatives?" weren't you advocating that we stop projects that have pork attached which is effect all projects? If not, what exactly is your point?

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to help assure reelection of the current bumper crop of hypocrites and liars." weren't you advocating the removal of all of these hypocrites and liars? If not, what exactly is your point?

And your flippant comment regarding Tom Delay didn't answer my original question - "Now we have billions and billions of dollars to spend on your poor dying children. How would you suggest the money be distributed so it is fair and equitable for all concerned and remove all possibility of fraud or theft?"

Would you please explain what your plan would be assuming that money was allocated for the expressed purpose of saving all of the starving children in the world? Please, no changing the subject, throwing out insults, or using your 1-2-3 comments. Just answer the question. What's your plan?

It's OK to admit you don't have a plan, most liberals only complain and whine without offering solutions. But at least admit it so we know where you stand.

glass houses.

Here is a religious quote for you.

let he without sin cast the first stone......

will you throw that stone?

After going back, doing a cool down, and then re-reading this discussion, I feel very silly.

It is clear that this was a troll attempt all along. EPW has not answered any direct questions, or provided any logical argument to defend his rants.

The most clever points of his counter posts rate along a pee-wee herman "I know you are, but what am I?"

He hung the hook out there, and like a big flounder, I took it and didn't let go.

Even worse, I broke my own rule of not getting personal, even if it is in return. Attack the idea, not the person. I am sorry for this epw.

Neither here, nor in your ChickenHawk trolls have you had anything valid to say. Both are clear partisan attacks by someone who is clearly filled with a lot of rage and hate.

I have enough issues in my life, than to allow your hate to influince me.

I am out of here. Good luck all.

--You are so deeply entrenched in the entitlement mentality that you see nothing wrong with the above statement. PEOPLE are the only entities that pay taxes! --

Businesses pay taxes on their assets and income. Churches ought to pay taxes on their assets and income, or bow out of the political arena. True, the people working in these organizations actually pay, but I wrongly assumed this went without saying. My mistake.

First of all, I'm not your friend.

You are a walking cliche without an original thought in your head. And the biggest hypocrite I've run across in a long, long time.

You have never responded to any questions. What have you done? (No answer) What do you plan to do? (No answer) What should be done? (People that you obviously hate should do more than they are already doing) That is what you think passes for substance?

The leftist in this country haven't had a new idea in the last 40 or 50 years. But they have had lots of practice in name calling and obstruction. And making life worse for the people they claim to care about.

While you and those like you have done nothing except complain and whine, Christians and Conservatives have been working to solve problems.

So lets hear your suggestions on how to solve the problem you brought up. Any ideas at all?

-

Perhaps your friends who are out saving whales and spotted owls could shift their attention (Hey, maybe all those starving children could eat whale and owl! Sally would really like them then!).

You rail against the right for wanting morals.
You worry for the poor and dying.
You miss completely where they come from.
Children born to AIDs patients, don't grow up
with parents. They starve and die.
Shouldn't we stop the spread of AIDS.
We know that it is spread by homo sex.
How many lives would be saved by banning that?
1-2-3 don't count that.
Women who graduate from HS, get married then
have children have only a 15% chance of poverty.
Women who drop out and have children have 85%
chance of being in poverty thier whole life.
Thier children have very little chance.
So, we should ignore the menace of underage sex?
1-2-3 don't stop them.
What you miss about Christian beliefs is the
belief in FREE WILL. God gives us free will to
do good things for people. It is wonderful
that you volunteer to help out, that you give
money to charities.
Government taxes are not free will. If you have
the government run it all, there is no free will.
If I force you to help an old lady across the
street, it will not count towards a merit badge.
I want my federals
to keep me safe from outside threats
and locals keep me safe from domestic crimminals.
You hate people that use Morals and Judgement
about how lives should be conducted.
The right is attacking problems at the root.
Think about where these problems come from,
not just the fruit that they have borne.

I'll explain it when I have more time.

"Too bad this profound human quality is all too rare in the American power structure."

I don't know where you are getting your data, but historically those with the most to give are the ones who give the most (truly mean people are fairly rare, even in the places you'd expect to find them). Maybe without their charity there might be 5 children dieing every second! Have you thought about that? Oozing negativity isn't going to make it happen any quicker.

we hear all the time about "the rich", and "the poor". The "middle class" and the attack on it all the time by the rich.

Which political party is it that concentrates on groups instead of individuals?

Which party says "it isn't your fault"?

Which party has created a victomization mentality, that is responsible for the current condition of the poor?

Which party seeks to demonize and punish people that are successful?

Which party will EVER say someone is too stupid to be able to do more than the most meanial of jobs?

Which party wants to steal from one class of people, and give that money to people that have no right to it, just so they can say that THEY care?

RIGHT NOW, which political party is trying to say that requireing a photo ID to vote is a violation of your rights?

RIGHT NOW, which political party does not WANT voter fraud to be stopped?

You got it, Democrats, right down the line.

The party that stands AGAINST a lot, and FOR very little.

When a company turns a PROFIT, they pay taxes on that profit.

They then pay their employees, and that money is again taxed.

The money is double dipped on.

This does not include property taxes.

Complaining about taxes. It is when the money is not FAIRLY taxed that many complain. When you keep penalizing people that are successful just to suppliment people that do nothing with their lives, people DO have a right to complain.

When the tax dollars are wasted on things like a lifetime on welfare, art exibits, or even paying farmers NOT to grow a crop, again there is a right to complain.

The Fedreal Government is currently doing a lot of things with our tax dollars that they have no constitutional right to do, making what they do illegal.

We need to stop wasting tax dollars on "aid" packages that go directly into the pockets of corrupt leaders of other nations.

A fine is a tax for doing something bad.
A tax is a fine for doing something good.

But the way some of them are levied appears to be unethical to say the least. Ultimately, consumers pay all taxes, so consumption is what should be taxed (and in my personal opinion, the [b]only[/b] thing that should be taxed). This is going on a tangent, but since companies don't pay tax anyway, why on earth are we taxing them? All it does is make more work for them keeping track of it, which ultimately adds to the cost of the product or service, without adding any value to it! You add this cost up for every company in the country, and it adds up to several hundred [b]BILLION[/b] dollars every year that is, basically, thrown down the toilet. It doesn't add value to the product, and the government doesn't get it, so what good is it?

(and by the way, I think these congresspersons who are pushing for increasing the tax on oil company profits are complete idiots, no matter their party. Where are they going to get the money to pay these additional taxes? I'll tell you where: [b]from you and me![/b] the same place they get the money to pay their existing taxes!)

Which party pits one group against the other while pretending to be friends to both?

Nobody mentioned that taxes are evil. The point was who actually pays taxes. (The people who work and actually produce things, for those who don't know.)

Try to focus.

Here is a really simple lesson in simple, basic economics. Suppose I bake a loaf of bread and sell it. Suppose it costs me $.90 to produce that bread and I sell it for $1.00, resulting in a profit of ten cents.

Now, suppose some politicial decides that people selling bread are making too much profit, and people are too fat anyway, and decides to tax each loaf of bread produced twenty five cents. That makes my cost to produce a loaf of bread go up to $1.15. Do you really think I'm going to still sell it for $1.00? I'm going to still sell it for more than my cost to make it, or I will go out of business very quickly. So, I'm going to pass the tax along, and sell that loaf of bread for $1.25, not $1.00 and the consumer will be paying the tax and I'll just be collecting the tax and sending it to the government.

My accountant will list my gross sales as $1.25 and taxes paid as $.25 and now you know far more about economics that you did a few minutes ago.

"And since the Church does not have to pay taxes, all of us are subsidizing the Catholic Church, as well as every other organized religion practicing in the US."

And the only way taxes could be subsidizing churches is if they are using services paid for by taxes, greater than the taxes paid. By that definition taxes subsidize lots of leftists, who produce little and line up for every handout available.

1 2 3...another 1 2 3...another.
Is anyone else tired of this sh*t? Wha wha wha wha wha wha children are dying wha wha wha... starving, hunger related disease.

Look I will be honest with you, who gives a F**K!! I don't. What ever happened to the laws of nature and letting nature take its course. Survival of the fittest, only the strong survive. If you really cared about this at all you would not have posted this. You would have been too busy shoveling another sandwich into some kids mouth because they are too lazy to go get their own food. Too lazy to move to a place that can grow crops. Dont give me this bullsh*t about no being capable either. You got 2 legs...you got mobility, its not like these people have a whole lot to carry with them. If you really wanted to help them DONT !!!! Let the die off and eventually there will be enough food to feed them, nature has a way of evening things out and humans tend to get in the way.

1 2 3...1 2 3 die for all i care, the US get sh*t on soo much by other people and other countries for not doing enough. I can guarantee you this, whatever the US has done it more than likely is 10 time more than any other country.

Lets take a look back in history, Uh oh Germany is going to take over the Europe Help Us Help Us !!!! The US gets involved, volunteers its own soldiers to die for another countries cause.

Uh oh, Germany's at it again, help help. The US tried to stay neutral, selling arms to both side until Japan attack US territory. Hey the US is back to help. Single handedly started the very first EFFECTIVE push against the Germans in French territory. Thats right the US basically handed France its country back. Check history folks its there.

This happened again in Korea and Vietnam. These countries were divided and someone asked for help, the US answered the call. Neither war was won but they poured troops in to help.

Kuwait is about to be invaded, US can you help...why yes they can and boy did they ever. Redeemed themselves from the Korea and Vietnam screwups.

Uh oh, whats this, the US attacked on its home land, they are asking for help. England.....anyone else? Austrailia, thanks guys. Could someone please shut France up. Useless twits, lucky they arent speaking German right now. Guess thats it. Thats ALL that was ready to initially help the US, not the UN, not even my home country (Germany) wanted to initially.

After that I hoped that the US would no longer provide help to any other country. And why should they now? Give us one good reason why? Because they are a "Christian Nation". BS, let them die, let all the children die, and their parents are fitting of a death as well for bringing them into this world.

1 2 3...eat it Jr. 1 2 3... so long little Suzie
1 2 3...bye bye you little rugrats. You are not the problem of the US or any other institution but your own. 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3...

I don't think it's so much "who cares because it's not a problem of my making", it's "I've tried and tried and these people keep on doing this to themselves and how many more chances are they going to get?".

In our case, we talked to a new official today. I felt better that she seemed more concerned than the last person we talked to that she replaced. At first she thought we were trying to get custody of the (seven, as a reminder) children, but we emphasized that, no, that's not our objective (although we would care for them in our home temporarily if that would become necessary), that we wanted the mother to get help with her problems that were keeping her from being a competent mother, and if necessary, stand over her and make her do it.

She talked the talk... she seemed genuinely appalled after reading just their past dealings with this mother (and I provided 15 more pages)... we'll just have to wait and see if she walks as good as she talks.

I will admit that I am not as stable of a person that most people are, but I am not afraid to let people know what I am TRUELY thinking and how I REALLY feel. I view it like this, if you cant be honest about how you feel and about what you think then you automatially have removed and importance of what you have to say about anything, you are a liar, plain and simple. I dont play the a$$ kissing games, I dont do politics at work, and in the grand scheme of life I believe NOTHING IS FREE. Equal effort must be made on all parts, and If no one pulls their own weight, take them outside and shoot the MOFO.

--That'll happen when your own government eats up 60% of what you produce!--

... and then proceeds to spend it on everything and anything except those things that can really make a difference in the world. Bad leadership, not government, is the problem.

Except that leftists pay taxes, religions don't. But thanks anyway for the basic lesson in economics. You put it very clearly. So why not take the next step and explain why you are complaining about taxes? Isn't the real problem the way they're misspent? That's my point. As long as the taxes are fair, the money has to come from somewhere doesn't it? And yet, for the so-called conservative right, the answer to every problem is to cut taxes. So again I'll ask you: Why not eliminate all taxes tomorrow?

--When you stated that one of the problems with the current administration was that they "subsidize tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans" weren't you advocating that taxes be increased for these individuals? If not, what exactly is your point??

Yes, I was advocating repealing the wildly irresponsible tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. For example, last year?s energy bill included as much as $15 billion in tax breaks for the struggling American oil industry. What? They don?t make enough already? We have to subsidize them to get them to spend money on exploration, refineries, and alternative energy?

--And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "contribute to the hundreds of billions being poured into the boy emperor's Iraqi adventure" - weren't you advocating that we end the war in Iraq and remove the possibility of spending additional billions of dollars? If not, what exactly is your point??

To date, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the US admits spending $277 billion dollars on the boy emperor?s Iraqi adventure. This sum would have been enough to fully fund global anti-hunger efforts for 11 years. Worst of all, because of their dangerous naivet? and blind refusal to listen to more knowledgeable experts, the boy emperor and his chicken hawk, neo-conservative policy wonks have put us in a bind from which we cannot escape unscathed. The chips always fall where they may. The best anyone can do is to conduct the nation?s business in as judicious a manner as possible. As far as Iraq is concerned, this administration clearly threw all caution to the wind, and that?s always a sure-fire formula for fiascos like the boy emperor?s Iraqi adventure.

The opportunity to save the $277 billion we?ve already wasted in Iraq was lost about five weeks after the invasion, when the consequences of going to war without a plan began to manifest themselves. To just blindly cut and run will only compound the damage, but this possibility is made all the more likely because of the ongoing asinine Iraqi policy of the boy emperor and his minions.

--And when you complained that the current administration was responsible for babies' deaths because they "help fund a war machine that soaks up more money than the total spent by all of our allies and enemies combined" - weren't you advocating that we cut military spending which in effect dismantles the miltary? If not, what exactly is your point? ?

The FY?06 Defense Authorization bill includes $441.6 billion for the Department of Defense and the nuclear weapons activities of the Department of Energy. This is $19.5 billion above the amount authorized for FY?05. The bill also authorizes another $49.1 billion (and counting) for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This funding is NOT counted as part of the $441.6 billion. Compared to the rest of the world, US military spending is:
? Two-fifths of the total
? 7 times larger than the Chinese budget, the second largest spender
? 29 times as large as the combined spending of the six ?rogue? states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) who spent $14.65 billion
? More than the combined spending of the next 14 nations.

The United States and its close allies accounted for some two thirds to three-quarters of all military spending, depending on who you count as close allies (typically NATO countries, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan and South Korea). The six potential rogue state ?enemies,? as well as Russia and China, together spend $139 billion, 30% of the U.S. military budget.
Just how would cutting military spending ?dismantle? the military? Are you seriously arguing that we can?t afford to reduce this bloated budget?

?Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes ? known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.? No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.?
James Madison, Political Observations, 1795

--And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to benefit "connected" business cronies of our elected ?representatives?" weren't you advocating that we stop projects that have pork attached which is effect all projects? If not, what exactly is your point? --

I don?t think I need to respond to this sophistry, but I?ll give it the answer it deserves. Unlike simple-minded buffoons who can only see the world as black or white, I know intelligent leadership can significantly reduce unnecessary pork.

And when you complained that the current Congress was responsible for babies' deaths because they create "a host of wasteful pork barrel projects to help assure reelection of the current bumper crop of hypocrites and liars." weren't you advocating the removal of all of these hypocrites and liars? If not, what exactly is your point?

Yes, by the electoral process, which you seem to have confused with ?removing congress totally and preferring a dictatorship.?

--And your flippant comment regarding Tom Delay didn't answer my original question.?

But it does draw attention to Republican hypocrisy and point out the sophistry that you like to substitute for legitimate discussion.

--Would you please explain what your plan would be assuming that money was allocated for the expressed purpose of saving all of the starving children in the world? Please, no changing the subject, throwing out insults, or using your 1-2-3 comments. Just answer the question. What's your plan? It's OK to admit you don't have a plan, most liberals only complain and whine without offering solutions. But at least admit it so we know where you stand.?

I?m working on it. It will be an outline of already existing plans for saving the children who are starving to death and dieing of hunger related diseases at the rate of ONE EVERY THREE SECONDS OF EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY HOUR OF EVERY DAY OF EVERY YEAR. You guessed it. I?ll use whatever comments I please. Remember 1 2 3, 1 2 3, 1 2 3, and on and on and on ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

I'm not sure how you thought I was complaining about taxes. I said "Nobody mentioned that taxes are evil."

But if you want to tax the rich you will have to tax net worth instead of income. Many very rich people have very little income. John Kerry is worth around one billion, and paid almost no income tax. Teddy Kennedy is another who is very rich by any definition and has very little actual income. (Both of them are very much in favor of "taxing the rich" by taxing income.)

Taxing income taxes those who are trying to become rich.

Sorry, but your response has generated a couple of more questions. I hope you don't mind but you are so knowledgeable about everything happening in the world.

If we take away tax cuts from the oil companies, isn't there a chance that the unemployment rate will go up as the companies cut back to keep their investors happy? And wouldn't a higher unemployment rate mean less tax dollars for the children? And if the profits of the oil companies fall because of the increased takes, doesn't that mean less taxes for the Government?

If we cut back on military spending, doesn't that also mean less soldiers which also means adding to the unemployment rate and means fewer dollars for the children?

Where are you going to find these politicians who are going to work to eliminate pork when the pork is what is keeping them elected? A new comer to politics who advocates cutting special projects in his/her district would never get elected since it would adversly affect the voters. And even if some did get elected, one term wouldn't be enough time to get things done and they'd never get re-elected if the cuts they advocate meant jobs at home. So how do you correct this and get the right people in office, by your standards?

You are advocating that we spend billions of dollars to save dying children which is indeed a noble cause. Bush spent billions of dollars saving millions of people in Iraq. Are they less important than your children? Should we ignore them and their problems and focus solely on the starving children? Or should we spend our tax dollars saving the entire world from all problems?

Have you finalized your plan yet? Remember, 1,2,3 children are dying while you're still trying to come up with a plan. 1,2,3 - there go three more. Stop stalling and get this fixed. 1,2,3 you're not trying hard enough.

BTW, what are your qualifications for solving the world's problems? What makes you ideas that much better than all of those who have tried before you? I know your parents must be proud that they raised someone of such a superior intellect. After all, you can use words like sophistry in a sentence so you must be smart.

Why don't you get elected and then you would have a better chance of completing your noble mission? It would be outstanding to have someone of your intellect and moral fiber in politics.

"Isn't the real problem the way they're misspent?"

Not all of the problem. More of it has to do with the efficiency. You see, it goes through the beuraucracy twice. Once when it is collected, and again when it is spent. There is nothing that can be done about this short of giving the government less money to work with.

I wouldn't eliminate ALL taxes, but I would change the way they are collected, and what they are spent on.

Tax only consumption. Not income and not wealth. Consumers pay all taxes anyway (through businesses passing their costs to the consumer), so why not just be up front about it?

Spend tax money only on infrastructure. Police, fire, military, roads, water and sewer, etc. (NOT social programs. NOT education. NOT disaster relief (except repairing infrastructure). Private business can do all of these things better and much more efficiently.)

They'll only need a fourth of what they're getting now, and we'll be able to help 3 times as many people as we help now, and 90% of our social problems would solve themselves.

The problem is implementing it. Those at the top of the wealth/power mountain (mostly old-money democrats) believe that only a few of the brighest minds (in their opinion: them!) are capapable of properly using this country's power, and they don't like to share! They punish those trying to climb that mountain by taxing them (and, as with most punishment, the object is to deter the punishable 'offense'), and demonize them to those who aren't trying to climb.

Unfortunately, enough of the right people aren't fed up enough with the status-quo to do anything about it, so it probably won't change any time soon.

Why would you think that [b]Oil companies[/b] should be required to have anything to do with alternative (assumedly non-[b]oil[/b] based] energy sources?

--If we take away tax cuts from the oil companies, isn't there a chance that the unemployment rate will go up as the companies cut back to keep their investors happy? And wouldn't a higher unemployment rate mean less tax dollars for the children? And if the profits of the oil companies fall because of the increased takes, doesn't that mean less taxes for the Government?--

Such a miniscule amount of US tax money is going to feed starving children that your question only serves to beg the question: why should oil companies with record profits need subsidies for anything? They only employ people they need, so fairly taxing them is not a concern. If they need them, they?ll employ them. If they don?t, they won?t. Fairly taxing oil companies will never mean less tax revenue for the government.

--If we cut back on military spending, doesn't that also mean less soldiers which also means adding to the unemployment rate and means fewer dollars for the children?--

This is a far cry from ?dismantling? the military. And no, if we use our resources wisely, cutting back on military spending need not translate into unemployment.

--Where are you going to find these politicians who are going to work to eliminate pork when the pork is what is keeping them elected? A new comer to politics who advocates cutting special projects in his/her district would never get elected since it would adversly affect the voters. And even if some did get elected, one term wouldn't be enough time to get things done and they'd never get re-elected if the cuts they advocate meant jobs at home. So how do you correct this and get the right people in office, by your standards?--

That' the problem, isn't it? I support a line item veto for the President. And I think all ?unrelated pork? that is attached to bills should be struck as a matter of course. If a congress person wants to pass a spending bill for a project in his or her district, then put such a bill on the floor and let it stand or fall on its own merits.

--You are advocating that we spend billions of dollars to save dying children which is indeed a noble cause. Bush spent billions of dollars saving millions of people in Iraq. Are they less important than your children? Should we ignore them and their problems and focus solely on the starving children? Or should we spend our tax dollars saving the entire world from all problems?.--

I don?t believe in destroying a country in order to save it. The war was ill-conceived, poorly planned and miserably executed by a group of chicken hawk neo-cons with fanciful dreams of dominating the world. We?d do ourselves a lot more good feeding starving children. And it would cost much less.

--Have you finalized your plan yet? Remember, 1,2,3 children are dying while you're still trying to come up with a plan. 1,2,3 - there go three more. Stop stalling and get this fixed. 1,2,3 you're not trying hard enough.
BTW, what are your qualifications for solving the world's problems? What makes you ideas that much better than all of those who have tried before you? I know your parents must be proud that they raised someone of such a superior intellect. After all, you can use words like sophistry in a sentence so you must be smart.
Why don't you get elected and then you would have a better chance of completing your noble mission? It would be outstanding to have someone of your intellect and moral fiber in politics.--

My qualifications come from the insistent calls for me to come up with a solution. In any case, plans already exist. All I can do is summarize them for you. Or you can do a search on global hunger and see what?s going on. You give me far too much credit for having original solutions. I never claimed to, nor is that important. What is important is that we, as a nation, begin to seriously try living up to our own high standards.