Further Thought on Charities Are for Suckers
If there's an argument to make against giving to charity it's that it serves as a huge neon sign advertising that the American people have more money available for taxation.
[I tried posting a similar response last night but it simply disappeared. Perhaps it is held for review and you simply haven't had a chance to get to it. But just in case, I have rewritten my response.]
You're right, I did not listen to all three parts. They are quite long and I do not have the time right now to sit at my computer and listen to them all. I should have time this weekend but by then this post will be in your archives and, well, out of sight out of mind.
Your responses are always well supported which is unique in the blogosphere so I do applaud you for that. However, you have spent a great deal of time and effort defending yourself against an argument I have not made.
At no time have I disagreed with your position regarding the Islamic world as a clear and present danger. You have made assumptions regarding my position presumably because of my response to the red crescent and my inquiry regarding how you would deal with over one billion Muslims. But such positions and inquiries do not necessarily develop into a weak-kneed view of the danger posed by the Islamic world, or as you have charged, a politically correct agenda. You have fallen into the trap of turning assumptions into facts. As proof, I have not offered nor have you asked for my view regarding Islam and the danger it poses. Though your responses are interesting and insightful, I would prefer ones that were on point.
In the time and space you have devoted to defending a position I have not challenged you could have easily summarized Michael Graham's suggested course of action which you claim reflects your own. As I said above, I should have time to listen to the last two clips this weekend but, for the purposes of discussion, I would appreciate a summary of your own thoughts.