Stones Cry Out

I reckon you'd also hate the words of Belafonte's friend, who said:

"I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government."

And...

"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom."

The speaker? Martin Luther King, Jr.

Prophets: It's always easier to honor them once they're dead than it is to heed them when they're alive.

Who knew King was speaking about Dubya? Amazing. I wonder what you think about America before there was welfare and Social Security. Have we been approaching spiritual doom from Day 1, since we've always spent more on the military than such programs?

Hyperbole about being a terrorist where there are demonstrably far, far worse ones out there is quite unbecoming of a prophet. Especially when he's pictured next to friend-of-Fidel Hugo Chavez and is telling him American's support his cause. Is that your kind of prophet?

I'd vote for Chavez - WITH ALL HIS PROBLEMS - over Bush today if I had the chance. Does that answer your question?

And I didn't said King was talking about W. My point was that King roundly, righteously and repeatedly criticized exactly the sort of behavior that W exemplifies.

I don't know that much about Belafonte, so I'm not necessarily endorsing him (although being a contemporary of King's and standing with him in difficult times says a lot about the man's character). I'm saying he's not far off with this remark and that sometimes when people speak of the sins of a nation, sometimes they're right.

In the context of the times, do you think King was wrong? Would you have said so then? Would you say so now?

I'd vote for Chavez - WITH ALL HIS PROBLEMS - over Bush today if I had the chance. Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you. Answers a whole lot of them.

I don't know that much about Belafonte, so I'm not necessarily endorsing him....

Just calling him or comparing him to a "prophet". Gotcha.

In the context of the times, do you think King was wrong? Would you have said so then? Would you say so now?

I think King made a good point, although it is not axiomatic. As I noted, for generations our government did not spend much of anything on social programs. The quote makes it sound like it's trying to say any nation at any time, which I would dispute.

Further, if a government is not authorized via its Constitution to do that (and you do seem, rightly, to want the government to abide by that document, given your NSA wiretapping issue comments), then you seem to be coming down on both sides of that argument now. Madison said it this way:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.

Perhaps Madison was concerned, also rightly, that when we cede much of our "programs of social uplift" to the government, the government fouls it up and corrupts it, buying votes, as it were, with promises of government handouts. As I've noted to you before, my position is that the more power government has, the more it is corrupted (which is rather axiomatic), and this includes power over social programs and the political manipulation it invites.

The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

"my position is that the more power government has, the more it is corrupted"

So would you agree to downsize the incredibly powerful military budget ($1/2 trillion)? I can agree that that much money and power has corrupted our gov't horribly. Can we come together on that point?

And I can agree that the comparatively modest but still large $20 billion social services budget probably has had corrupting influences (maybe 25x less than the military budget if corruption is scalable) and I'd rather see private groups do some assistance programs IF THEY WOULD.

How about this: I'll advocate for scaling back social services by half if you advocate for scaling back the military budget by 75% (it is awfully huge and to whom much has been given...)?

So would you agree to downsize the incredibly powerful military budget ($1/2 trillion)? I can agree that that much money and power has corrupted our gov't horribly. Can we come together on that point?

Yes, we can agree on that.

How about this: I'll advocate for scaling back social services by half if you advocate for scaling back the military budget by 75% (it is awfully huge and to whom much has been given...)?

To whom much is given, much is expected. Like the money used for higher tech systems that have made the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the ones with the fewest comparative casualties vs. the results. "If it saves just one life, then the money's worth it." A lot of that money is well-spent.

And like the money used to defend allies against enemies they could not handle themselves (and using the aforementioned high tech systems). I wouldn't mind bringing the troops home from the dozens of places that we've been for decades, but do you really want to hang South Korea out to dry? When it comes time for North Korea to talk nuclear disarmament, or Iran about not chasing nukes, don't you think they look at what we can bring to bear and consider that? Do they really listen to anything else? A lot of money well-spent.

Yes indeed, I think some of the money in the Defense Department gets lots to graft and corruption. But you want a cut of 75% of a clearly constitutional function of government, which the rest of the world (as much as they trashtalk it) wants and needs? Please, this is disingenuous. And vs 50% of programs which Madison and others wouldn't be able to find justification for in the Constitution? I'd be glad to do a 20% cut across the board, as long as we don't keep our soldiers in the poor house and we don't sacrifice our ability to keep them alive.

But we're getting off the subject. Belefonte's hyperbole in support of communism is just silly, your preference for it notwithstanding.

"I'd vote for Chavez - WITH ALL HIS PROBLEMS - over Bush today if I had the chance. Does that answer your question?"

Go there then, Dan. You have the chance. In fact, if you go there, you won't have the chance to vote for anyone else. Perfect.

I go to Venezuela on missions regularly. I've seen Chavez ruin that country. He is a brutal dictator. I know many people who have lost jobs and/or property because they wouldn't sign a petition. Play the game or pay the price. People feel they are in prison. There is no legitimate voting. It is not secret. You vote the wrong way, you lose your job. Not just government jobs, either. If you own the company, your people better vote the right way or you will lose it. No free speech. No jobs. No currency of any value. Economy is ruined. No anything that we value as Americans. Chavez is a criminal, a thug.

Dan, you have no idea. None. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Go visit there for a couple weeks 'on vacation' as I do. Spend the time with the common people, as I do. You will be change your mind for sure, I know it. Take any issue you have with Bush, wiretapping? With Chavez, there is no wiretapping scandles/leaks, although he is spying on everyone. There is just destroyed lives of anyone that questions or says anything critical. The people I knew several years ago that were doing well are mostly wondering when they will have a chance to eat again.

The only good thing is that Church work there has become easy. Churches are filled with people searching for answers, desparate for a savior.

For some on the right, Hilary would be the worst case senario for a president. However, from my perspective, she still would be 1000x's better than Chavez. Dan, please. You have made a foolish statement. Stop saying things you know nothing about.

That may have been a hasty statement. In truth, I do not know nearly enough about Chavez. FROM WHAT I'VE READ THUS FAR, I'd vote for Chavez over Bush. I think the evidence supports the notion that Bush is a war criminal and I've read nothing that tells me that Chavez is a war criminal.

I think some of Bush's policies are contributing to terrorism. I've not seen anything to suggest that about Chavez. I think Bush believes the ends justify the means. I've not seen anything that suggest Chavez believes this.

However, Chavez IS a politician after all. He may well be as corrupt as many are. If what I've read thus far is incomplete, then I apologize for making a hasty statement. Maybe I wouldn't vote for either. As it stands now, I'd vote for Chavez over Bush.

I suggest you start getting informed. Start with the speech he gave at the rally related to this story. They are taking away people's land.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=ad0Rr2TQKiqY&refer=latin_america

If he were president, he'd take yours too, Dan. Those with 2 cars are having one taken away and given to those with none. Those with two or more properties (landlords) are having it taken away and given to those with none.

Haven't read where Chavez is a war criminal. Chavez attemped a coup of his government, failed, and spent time in prison there. Upon release, he succeded at his next attemp and became president. He overthrew his government, and you want him as president. Think.

Haven't read about Chavez and terrorism. He loves every enemy of the United States, Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khaddafy, Taliban, Iran. Chavez supports the FARC guerillas of neighboring Colombia, one of the largest and most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world.

Haven't read that Chavez thinks the ends justifies the means? That's his whole life. If you critized Chavez in Venezuela the way you criticize Bush, you would have been put in jail long ago (this is not a joke). Some people threat that if 'so-and-so becomes president, I'm moving to ....'. I love America dearly, and would not say this about any American politician becoming president. However, if Chavez were president, I'd get out as immediately, no thinking required. You have to understand, he believes Cuba is the best model of government on earth. He is turning his country into Cuba. Most of the people I know want out, but they are not allowed (like a prison). He would turn the US into a giant Cuba as well. He hates America and would destroy it as we know it. Not change it, destroy it. I'll say it again. Just take a visit. If you like what you see, stay.

Fine, if things are as you say, then you've made a case that he may be as bad as Bush, in which case I'd vote for neither. Bush IS destroying the US.

Dan - Keep waiting for the knock on the door. You will be taken to the re-education camp. And you will lose your house.

Actually... you can lose your house in this country, but you don't have Bush to blame, but SCOTUS.

When are you guys going to go back to talking religion instead of politics?

I'm sorry, guys, but how can there even be a pretense of "intelligent" debate with someone spouts platitudes like "Bush IS destroying the US" and 'I'd vote for fascist, terrorist dictator Hugo Chavez over Bush'?

"Intelligence" never even enters the picture.

Fearmongering and spreading questionable statements do not behoove Christians.

Like your statements about Bush destroying the US.