"Charitable libs"

[Libsmasher]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13329

They want to help the poor - with YOUR money, not THEIRS.

[Here We Go]

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13329

They want to help the poor - with YOUR money, not THEIRS.

That is terrible. The more I learn in this room, the more disenchanted I am with the majority of politicians. They should know we'll find out their dirty little secrets and lies. But, it is obvious they don't seem to care.

[Libsmasher]

That is terrible. The more I learn in this room, the more disenchanted I am with the majority of politicians. They should know we'll find out their dirty little secrets and lies. But, it is obvious they don't seem to care.

This is why people should never let government control the net (like in the PRC ant colony). What makes it invincible is exactly that uncontrolled nature. The net is certainly the greatest technological innovation in my lifetime so far.

[GenSeneca]

Global Poverty Act: 845 billion dollar pricetag

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations. WND (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56405)

War on Poverty? Mission Accomplished!

Its nice to know we have completely eradicated Poverty in America. There are no homeless, hungry or disadvantaged at all - thanks to Liberals giving away other peoples money.

..And we have so much money left over from ending that "War", we can send it, and more, to other nations! After all, that makes more sense than reducing unnecessary and burdensome taxes... doesn't it? :confused:

[PLC1]

Oh, goodie, the war on poverty gone global. That could cost the taxpayers as much as the so called war on terror.

Is there even one politician who has some understanding of fiscal responsibility? We are just ending one of the most liberal administrations in history, and now are about to elect yet another, regardless of who wins the election.

[9sublime]

Yay, lets group all the "liberals" together, just like how I know all right wingers are quite happy to be grouped with the KKK and Fred Phelps.

That article is pathetic.

[Libsmasher]

Yay, lets group all the "liberals" together, just like how I know all right wingers are quite happy to be grouped with the KKK and Fred Phelps.

That article is pathetic.


Liberals are the LAST people to talk about grouping - to them, the political spectrum is liberals, moderates (liberal republicans), and "the far right" (ie, anyone to the right of say Arlen Spector).

[PLC1]

Liberals are the LAST people to talk about grouping - to them, the political spectrum is liberals, moderates (liberal republicans), and "the far right" (ie, anyone to the right of say Arlen Spector).

Your one dimensional left to right overly simplistic political model is leading you astray.

There are so many definitions of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as to render the terms meaningless.

There are several political continuums. The big government to limited government is one that is usually seen as liberal to conservative. The libertarian to authoritarian continuum is a little more troubling, as the very people who call themselves conservative typically favor more authoritarianism, which means more government power.

[GenSeneca]

Is there even one politician who has some understanding of fiscal responsibility?

I know of roughly 38 in the House and about 13 in the Senate (Ron Paul is unfortunately not one of them)... Which leaves the fiscally responsible outnumbered 10-1 in the House (38-397) and 8-1 (13-87) in the Senate.

We are just ending one of the most liberal administrations in history, and now are about to elect yet another, regardless of who wins the election.

You said it....

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/10172007.jpg

The budget may not survive the next president.

The libertarian to authoritarian continuum is a little more troubling, as the very people who call themselves conservative typically favor more authoritarianism, which means more government power.

Conversely, far too many people that call themselves Libertarians are Anarchists, who consider any level of authority oppressive.

[PLC1]

I know of roughly 38 in the House and about 13 in the Senate (Ron Paul is unfortunately not one of them)... Which leaves the fiscally responsible outnumbered 10-1 in the House (38-397) and 8-1 (13-87) in the Senate.



You said it....

http://blogs.indystar.com/varvelblog/10172007.jpg

The budget may not survive the next president.



Conversely, far too many people that call themselves Libertarians are Anarchists, who consider any level of authority oppressive.

Yes, anything can be taken to extremes. The point is that there is no such thing as a simple conservative to liberal continuum with most people somewhere in the middle. There are many unrelated issues.

[GenSeneca]

Yes, anything can be taken to extremes. The point is that there is no such thing as a simple conservative to liberal continuum with most people somewhere in the middle. There are many unrelated issues.

I created the term CaLiCo as a result of exactly what your talking about. Capitalist, Libertarian, Conservative... pretty well plots out where my priorities are on the political scale and which politicians/policies I find palatable.
------------------------------------------------

Now back to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress:

The "Charitable Libs" with special guest Thomas Sowell.

Excerpt from: Who Really Cares (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html)? by Thomas Sowell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sowell)

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.

What is the reason why some people are liberals and others are conservatives, if it is not that liberals are more compassionate?

Fundamental differences in ideology go back to fundamental assumptions about human nature. Based on one set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a liberal. Based on a different set of assumptions, it makes perfect sense to be a conservative.

The two visions are not completely symmetrical, however. For at least two centuries, the vision of the left has included a belief that those with that vision are morally superior, more caring and more compassionate.

While both sides argue that their opponents are mistaken, those on the left have declared their opponents to be not merely in error but morally flawed as well. So the idea that liberals are more caring and compassionate goes with the territory, whether or not it fits the facts.

Those on the left proclaimed their moral superiority in the 18th century and they continue to proclaim it in the 21st century. What is remarkable is how long it took for anyone to put that belief to the test -- and how completely it failed that test.

The two visions are different in another way. The vision of the left exalts the young especially as idealists while the more conservative vision warns against the narrowness and shallowness of the inexperienced. This study found young liberals to make the least charitable contributions of all, whether in money, time or blood. Idealism in words is not idealism in deeds. -RCP (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html)

Anecdotally, this is certainly true for liberals that I know well. They are so self absorbed, the idea that they should give money to a legitimate charity (as opposed to some bum on the street), or anything else for that matter, goes against their entitlement mentality. (I'm talking about family too, not random strangers I think might-possibly-be Liberals)

[NO Obamanation]

It seems to me that Lib’s are not only tight with their money when it comes to charity but they are also when it comes to politics.

There is a site called fund race. I paid very close attention to it during the 2004 elections.

The biggest loud mouths like Barbara Streisand and Susan Sarandon gave so little, actually Barbara gave 1000 to each Dem running and Susan gave zero, and her husband matched her zero. Most all of the big mouths gave little to nothing to their party. I looked in my area, and people around here (a pretty lower income to middle class income area) gave tons more than any of the rich loud mouths.

I think the rich liberal snobs think taking their time to tell us to be charitable is their contribution in their own eyes.

I especially get frustrated over the Obama’s, who openly advocate some of us have to give up some of our pie to give to others who do not have any pie, while they are doing pretty damn ok. And giving less than 1 percent of their pie, (and only in a political year)
And that 1 percent went to their racist church! But we should be happy to give up what we work so hard for without argument.

[Andy]

That is terrible. The more I learn in this room, the more disenchanted I am with the majority of politicians. They should know we'll find out their dirty little secrets and lies. But, it is obvious they don't seem to care.

What really blew me away reading that was... obviously I'm not a Democrat or a Liberal... but... uh last year... I gave more to charity than half of the people on that list, and I made only $17K last year. Is that a riot or what?

[9sublime]

Liberals are the LAST people to talk about grouping - to them, the political spectrum is liberals, moderates (liberal republicans), and "the far right" (ie, anyone to the right of say Arlen Spector).

You are only proving my original point. YOU are the one who is stuck in a mentality of grouping people into little boxes by what they believe on other issues.

[Libsmasher]

You are only proving my original point. YOU are the one who is stuck in a mentality of grouping people into little boxes by what they believe on other issues.

I'm a "grouper", because I identify people who group. Hmmm :rolleyes: errrr uhhhhhh, OK, If you say so. (?) :confused:

[Andy]

You are only proving my original point. YOU are the one who is stuck in a mentality of grouping people into little boxes by what they believe on other issues.

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.

The president makes unwanted passes at her, and when she complains (something the feminist movements says she should do), what's the first thing they do? She's trailer park white trash. (grouping to discredit) I honestly feel horrible for the women. She'll likely spend the rest of her life trying to get that insult out of the back of her mind.

How about pro-life people? The first thing you hear is, they bomb abortion clinics. (grouping to accuse)

And any type of religious views, it's people like them that caused the crusades. (grouping to slander)

I myself, on this forum, have had the same thing done to me. Never once do they address the evidence on a particular issue, but rather I've been called "low brow" which to me just shows arrogance, "conspiracy theorist" just means 'I can't argue with your evidence', "Anti-technologist" despite being in a high tech field, making high tech products... and on and on.

That said, everyone "groups" to some degree. Everyone makes judgments about someone they meet in the first few minute of conversation. But, generally, Liberals use these as a means to discredit, slander, and accuse people with. It's a way of avoiding actually thinking through the issue which may lead to changing of opinion, or admitting error.

[Libsmasher]

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.

The president makes unwanted passes at her, and when she complains (something the feminist movements says she should do), what's the first thing they do? She's trailer park white trash. (grouping to discredit) I honestly feel horrible for the women. She'll likely spend the rest of her life trying to get that insult out of the back of her mind.

How about pro-life people? The first thing you hear is, they bomb abortion clinics. (grouping to accuse)

And any type of religious views, it's people like them that caused the crusades. (grouping to slander)

I myself, on this forum, have had the same thing done to me. Never once do they address the evidence on a particular issue, but rather I've been called "low brow" which to me just shows arrogance, "conspiracy theorist" just means 'I can't argue with your evidence', "Anti-technologist" despite being in a high tech field, making high tech products... and on and on.

That said, everyone "groups" to some degree. Everyone makes judgments about someone they meet in the first few minute of conversation. But, generally, Liberals use these as a means to discredit, slander, and accuse people with. It's a way of avoiding actually thinking through the issue which may lead to changing of opinion, or admitting error.

You left out the big one this campaign season (and possibly for four more years :() - anyone who disagrees with Obama is a "racist".

[GenSeneca]

And because Hillary didn't get the nomination... Americans are clearly Sexist. ;)

[PLC1]

I would have to agree with him. Just based on personal experience. Liberals constantly group in order to make up a false reason to accuse, slander or discredit. For example, Jennifer Flowers.



Thus, you yourself group liberals in order to show how liberals group. Interesting. Is your definition of "liberal" still people who favor a strong and powerful central government, or has the meaning shifted?

[Andy]

Thus, you yourself group liberals in order to show how liberals group. Interesting. Is your definition of "liberal" still people who favor a strong and powerful central government, or has the meaning shifted?

I stated what I had experienced. If you call that grouping to point out how others group, especially since I have never done that to another, fine. I don't see many people saying they support X or are liberal, and having tons of people automatically calling them Jew killers or Killing Field supporters, or child murderers.

I don't see how any of the previously stated experiences, are in some way mutually exclusive to supporting an overbearing controlling authoritarian central government. It is possible that a defined Liberalism can have more than one single attribute.

[PLC1]

I stated what I had experienced. If you call that grouping to point out how others group, especially since I have never done that to another, fine. I don't see many people saying they support X or are liberal, and having tons of people automatically calling them Jew killers or Killing Field supporters, or child murderers.

Yes, grouping people under the banner "liberal", or any other banner, and saying that those people you have clumped are guilty of grouping others together is illogical to say the least.

No, I don't see people calling themselves "liberal" being automatically called Jew killers or killing field supporters, either. So?

I don't see how any of the previously stated experiences, are in some way mutually exclusive to supporting an overbearing controlling authoritarian central government. It is possible that a defined Liberalism can have more than one single attribute.


It is possible that the term "liberal" can be and is used to mean whatever the user wants it to mean at the time.

If the term means those who support an "overbearing controlling authoritarian central government", then most of the people we've sent to Washington are liberals, unfortunately.