The politics of assassination

Well, what was Stephanopoulos' quote?As for military leaders, it's one thing for a general to advocate/discuss assassination when dealing with a country we are at war with or about to be at war with.PR wanted us to assassinate the leader of a country that we not only are at peace with, but with which we have hearty trade.If you can't tell the difference...

Obviously the outrage at PR is that he says this stuff, then asks people for money because he's so saintly

Pat Robertson does not ask for donations?

I agree. Just like the Bush admin policy that torture is okay and that holding people without charge is okay.The key to being the "good guys" is acting like the good guys.

Wow, you really don't understand the concept behind separation of Church and State.From a strict standpoint one would say, Robertson, as a head of a religeous community, should not be trying to dictate foreign policy.However, as an American, it's his right to say what he wants.When we argue seperation of Church and State what we are really saying is: "Just because most of you call yourselves Christians doesn't mean you can use the government to cram it down everyone else's throat."

He started habitat for Humanity. Robertson called for the assassination of a democratically elected foreign leader.Of course, it's because Carter is on the left that we support him.You obviously don't read what we're writing, do you at least read what you are writing?

The old would you shoot Hitler question...Here's the answer -- No.There are other solutions. Try to change his mind. Kidnap Hitler. Etc.Now, here's the bigger problem with this question. While I am certainly not a Hitler fan / Nazi apologist, I wonder if shooting Hitler in the 30's would have stopped WWII and the Holocaust from happening? Are they the result of one man's will or the results of geo-political conditions coming to a boiling point.I don't pretend to know the answer, but I know that you also do not know the answer.So, shooting Hitler would not necessarily make a difference, and it would be a morally wrong thing to do. Sounds like the answer is pretty clear.

Kettle, it's me Pot. You're black.Gotta love it when one of the "I'm saved, you're not" crowd tells you that you are "holier than thou". Too funny.

False. Japan gives more than we do in numerically.
1. Japan $7.9 billion
2. United States $6.9 billionPer Capita we come in 20th, behind -
1. Luxembourg $313.71 per person
2. Norway $304.80 per person
3. Denmark $300.05 per person
4. Netherlands $243.79 per person
5. Sweden $188.85 per person
6. Switzerland $146.87 per person
7. Belgium $103.43 per person
8. France $89.02 per person
9. Finland $72.55 per person
10. Ireland $70.47 per person
11. United Kingdom $69.48 per person
12. Germany $67.93 per person
13. Austria $63.53 per person
14. Japan $62.00 per person
15. Canada $60.96 per person
16. Australia $44.49 per person
17. Spain $32.96 per person
18. Portugal $25.64 per person
19. New Zealand $24.70 per person
20. United States $23.33 per personAnd here's the list by percentage of GNP1. Denmark $0.93 per $100
2. Netherlands $0.83 per $100
3. Norway $0.76 per $100
4. Sweden $0.66 per $100
5. Luxembourg $0.53 per $100
6. Switzerland $0.43 per $100
7. Belgium $0.33 per $100
8. France $0.31 per $100
9. Finland $0.25 per $100
10. Germany $0.23 per $100
11. United Kingdom $0.23 per $100
12. Ireland $0.22 per $100
13. Japan $0.21 per $100
14. Austria $0.20 per $100
15. Canada $0.19 per $100
16. Australia $0.14 per $100
17. Portugal $0.14 per $100
18. Spain $0.14 per $100
19. New Zealand $0.10 per $100
20. Italy $0.06 per $100
21. United States $0.05 per $100But, you know, thanks for playing.Thanks to nationmaster.com

What accusation were you supposedly responding to?By the way, I noticed you completely skipped message 39 where I ask if Pat Robertson asks for donations from his viewers.

Once again, you start pointing fingers and putting words in other people's mouths. Let's trace the thread, shall we.You in message 4: Me in message 8: You 15: Me 20: You 24 What slander? He is asking people for money on the premise that he's doing God's work. He is also calling for the assassination of leader who don't want the United States to invade them for their oil.But let's continueMe 37: You 61: How am I insinuating that PR is evil? You said that I was slandering him when I said he asked for donations. Sounds like you are overcompensating for something.Could it be that you believe that he's evil and are projecting that on me?

Typical Faith posting.You make an outrageously false statement, are quickly and completely disproven and your response is, "you guys are stupid."You said we are the biggest giver of aid. I have shown that we are not.Admit you are wrong.

Thank you GDR for posting clearly and giving quotes.You are correct that the numbers I gave are government to government trade.I'm sure you are also right about individual donations after the tsunami, though I haven't seen any numbers.It may be that Faith was half right in saying that Americans give quite a lot as individual citizens.But our discussion is about government policy. The government does very little to sponsor individual giving.I also wonder, but have no idea where to find this information, how our individual donations rate on a per capita level.About your second quote -- the 12.7 billion in government aid that isn't within ODA guidelines. Can we really call this "aid"? We give Isreal several million dollars worth of fighter jets as aid, but really it's arming an ally.I consider "aid" to be programs that help people without an overt benifit to ourselves. (ie AIDS in Africa, Tsunami, 3rd world Debt relief)

Show me the numbers on the aid we gave out during the Great Depression compared to the other countries of the world.Don't use words like "always" unless you mean them. I always love when people say this. By the way, people have been saying it for a very long time. Kind of makes you think we've been on a long slide for the last few hundred years.Are you suggesting that the shoot 'em up, drink 'em up, whore 'em up days of the Wild West were morally superior to our own?Perhaps the gangster tommygun 20'sOr are you talking about a time closer to our own. The segregationist 50's perhaps.The fact of the matter is that people lionize the past as the "good old days" and talk about the "moral decay" or modern society and the "coming wrath of God" as a means of drumming up donations.They were doing it in the 50's, in the 20's and in the Wild wild west.The reason they say these things is simple. "things are bad now, and I can fix them. Give me money" works a lot better than "Things used to be bad, we've come a long way. Give me money."

Wow, nice post Tal.You've really proven you're point that when looking for milage, Presidents / candidates will play the Jesus card to shore up support.This, however, doesn't make us a "Christian Nation".