JDJohnP21 wrote:I am not a troll. gnomgnomuch, Please respond to the following questions civilly and without insult.
1, what effect does ISIS and Iran have on us? How could the Middle East ever be a threat to this country?
2. Do you honestly believe that the killing of Sadam or Gadaffi helped Iraq or Lybia in any way? If so, how?
3. What is your justification for welfare and high taxes on the rich? ( you must use the Constitution and the Bill of Rights)
4. Why did Congress invite Francis to speak here? Why won't they invite an actual theologian like Dr. James White, John Piper, or Douglas Wilson to speak?
If you answer these questions civilly, I promise to not post or make another thread for the rest of year.
Really been enjoying this thread, so thought I'd respond.
1. I think that, for the most part, we should leave Iran alone, as Iran can be used as a powerful counterweight to some of the more extreme Sunni ideologies. Accordingly, to the extent we fuck with Iran, it should be to protect American interests in the Middle East. This brings me to my next point. Whether we would like to admit it or not, the United States has powerful foreign policy and economic interests in the Middle East, and should protect them. These interests include, but are not limited to, our persistent need for foreign oil, preserving our relationships with Israel and Turkey,and acting to counterbalance Chinese and Russian influence in the region. While I think we have gone way too far, and expended too many resources protecting our interests in the Middle East over the past 15 years or so, I also think that it flies in the face of reason to act like we are not living in a globalized world where we compete with other world powers for influence in nearly every corner of the globe.
2. I think the problem with our nation building exercises in Iraq and Libya is that (i) they were extremely expensive; and (ii) we didn't/couldn't follow through. I generally agree that we should not be in the business of building countries (especially ones that little or no experience with democracy, as that transition tends to produce instability in the short run). However, I think the power void and chaos that has subsequently arisen would have likely happened anyway, as it often does when long serving dictators pass away. I also think that both of the interventions you cite were really more about American economic interests than anything else. Finally, I think that taking the long view on Libya is necessary, as I don't believe a sufficient amount of time has passed to really see how that's going to shake out. That said, Iraq is a complete clusterfuck, and, economic interests aside, we never should have gone there.
3.The 16th Amendment gives Congress carte blanche to levy income taxes as it wishes (and in case you meant the "Consititution" as it was passed in 1787- sorry, but subsequent amendments count). Therefore, Congress can tax the rich if it would like. As far as welfare goes, if we are talking state run welfare programs (i.e. EBT), then see the Tenth Amendment, which contains a general reservation of rights for the states. If, as I presume, you are talking about federal, New Deal and Great Society-style welfare programs, then you should know that their constitutionality has been repeatedly struck down under Article I, Section 8. However, the Supreme Court has approved of most (if not all) federal "welfare" programs that currently exist. Thus, the answer is Article I, Section 8. I will add, in case you dispute the validity of Supreme Court decisions, that SCOTUS precedent (plus the Constitution) constitutes the supreme law of the land. Thus, if SCOTUS says something is constitutional under the Commerce Clause, then it remains so unless and until the Court says otherwise.
4. This question overlooks the fact that the Pope is not only the leader of a religion, but a political leader as well. Congress didn't invite the Pope to speak because he is a religious person. They invited him because he is a political leader whose soft power crosses international boundaries, and because he has substantive relationships with many world leaders (and is thus useful for advancing US policies/agendas in cases where it would be politically embarrassing and/or impossible to do so in broad daylight).
By the way, I don't think your viewpoints are invalid because you are conservative. I actually couldn't care less about your particular ideology (and as has been pointed out, neither will most people). However, I think the overly dogmatic conservative thing doesn't suit you (or anyone) that well because maintaining that type of ideological rigidity makes it look like you don't have the intellectual stamina to consider competing points of view. Before I get accused of liberal bias, this paragraph applies to most people with unquestioning views, whether they are liberal or conservative.
