Sometimes it amazes me what gets Leftists angry, and causes them to literally damn a conservative. Apparently, using the correct definitions of words is one of those things. Last week, a letter to the editor was published arguing that spending on military equipment is “theft” from the poor. I responded that is not the case, unless taxes from the poor are funding those things. We know that’s not the case because of the huge percentage of federal revenue that comes form the top ten percent of wage earners.
A few of the responses:
- How Christian of you Scott.
- It’s hard to imagine how Tibbs’s views could be more different from those of Jesus the Nazarene.
- It’s hard to imagine how Saul-Paul’s views could be more different from those of Jesus the Nazarene
- His bible is missing Matthew 25. It’s a common problem.
I assume that last comment is in reference to Matthew 25:31-46.
Since I am a hardcore literalist (which is increasingly burdensome in a society that does not believe objective truth even exists, and everyone has their own “truth”) let’s examine what I actually said.
- No, it is not theft, unless the poor an hungry were the ones taxes to build the guns, rockets and warships. And that’s not the case.
Note I did not say a single thing about policy or what policy should be. Note I did not say that we should not help the poor. Note I did not say that there should be no government programs to help the poor. I simply corrected an incorrect version of the word theft. It is not theft when you refrain from taking the wealth of one person to redistribute it. If I say I will not take money from Joe-Bob to give it to Bubba, I am not stealing from Bubba. Words mean things.
It says a lot about our society that someone cannot even point out a word is being used improperly without being personally attacked. This also shows why “bipartisanship” is a fraud and a sham.