In his 1875 "Critique Of The Gotha Program", Karl Marx wrote what is one of his most memorable quotes: "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs". Simply stated, a re-distrubition of wealth, food or whatever was the antidote to the ills of a society that disproportionally disenfranchised the poor. Worse, the haves kept the have-nots from ever gaining ground.

In his Godless Communism, he attempted to argue for the poor, for the hungry, for the homeless and for the powerless through the offices of "the state". However, didn't Jesus argue for the same rights for the same people, but, through each of us individually? Marx and Jesus were both right, it would appear.

Should the rich pay more in taxes? Should the poor pay less or nothing? What is the responsibility of "the state" to ensure that people don't go hungry, become homeless or lose all hope?

Mr. Thompson plays the "us-versus-them" card far too cavalierly, with complete disdain for the lesser among us; in his blind ambition to win the Presidency, he tramples the poor with gleeful abandon.

Mr. Thompson's "bogeyman" of a Democrat in the White House metaphorically raping the wealthy in favor of the poor sounds incredibly crass and venal. He should know better and he should be ashamed of fomenting class warfare.

Marx was right. Jesus was right. Thompson is wrong.

You wrote: "I thought it was supposed to be us Christains that did not think. Maybe you should consider some anger management or do a I did and let the Lord manage your anger. You all have my prayer. OH and Rudy will never get my vote or any other Pro Abortion person." -- java mama

You know, Javamama, it's not Christians that are the target of the ire of many, it's the arrogance and meanness of some of those "Christians". You see, I'm a Christian and you sure as hell don't speak for me. You quote Jesus without having a clue about what and who He represented. Too bad.

Oh, when you let the Lord manage your "anger", please ask Him for a brain to go along with all that unfocused rage.

Watching each Republican candidate attempt to appear evermore pious than the others is humorous except for one thing: one of these clowns may (God forbid!) become the next President. The thought of any of them being President-cum-Ayatollah is more than a little frightening!

I imagine that the next steps for these dolts would be to exhibit serious stigmata; I can't wait till THAT occurs at the next debate!

This is a work of fiction! Dumbledore is not real! Harry Potter isn't either! Getting upset about fiction when the author of that fiction changes the basic parameters of the characters does not merit spewing a plethora of pap. OK?

Now, when Mr. Brethed is renditioned off to a third-world country that worships spittoons and is waterboarded because his fictional character Opus tweaks Dubya's nose...well, THEN you may have my attention.

Mitt Romney, apologizing for calling Barack Obama "Osama Bin Ladin", said that he "mis-spoke and didn't know where his head was at" when he said that.

I know where his head was at...confirming my suspicion that his hair gel is actually Preparation-H.

I agree with your points, but, I see Romney's usage as somewhere between a "Macaca Moment", i.e., an intentional ethnic slur and a don't-give-a-crap-about-an-opponent that permeates the entire Republican alimentary canal of thought.

Either way, I find it useful to point out to others that the Republicans despise anyone who isn't white, born-again or heterosexual; Mr. Romney's thinly-disguised commentary is about par for the course for his ilk.

IMHO, any "reporter" who doesn't challenge fishy fantasy from an interviewee during questioning isn't doing his/her primary job: ascertaining the facts. To then write that story containing those fishy facts...as the truth...makes the "reporter" a co-conspirator.

Of course, if it's a FOX News "reporter" we're talking about here...never mind.

One of the funniest things about the average male Repooplican is the almost maniacal insecurity over the size, or the lack therof, of the phallus...metaphorically speaking, of course.

Trying to out-macho each other would be completely laughable, except for the fact that these over-grown fratboys are vying to be Commander-In-Chief. Feeling less "masculine" usually leads to an over-compensation such as a phony war; nothing makes the ol' phallus less flaccid than a good and manly invasion, right?

But, God knows, we don't need another towel-snapping frat-boy in the White House; we have one of those now...and, hows that been working out?

Snarkiness aside, the real and unspoken question here is: is Zac Ephron gay or simply a metrosexual? It wouldn't be the first time a person's sexuality has been questioned for no real reason.

Poor Matt Dallas, star of ABC's "Kyle XY", has been described by most if not all websites as either an outright flamer or as "sexuality indeterminate". Who cares?

In any Euro country...or any other enlightened country in the world...someone's sexuality isn't an issue; our pathetic legacy as scions of Puritans (and, I am one myself) makes us prurient at worst and intrusive at best.

I suppose only those who live for WWF events, drive pickups and debase women for fun and sport are the "real men" in America.

God help us all.