If liberals care more for the little guy, why do conservatives give more to charity?

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

No, I do not donate my money for tax writeoffs, would be nice to see these "charitable" institutions (churches) get taxed like they should and the leeches who use them as writeoffs have to pay their share to society.

Yeah what leeches, giving away money for free, they should be willing to have it stolen by the likes of Steeple and his politician cronies duh!

btw anybody find this ironic Steeple complaining about the leeches on society while he contributes nothing? Hey Leechlerot, if you dont want to give to charities, why not give more on your federal income taxes?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yeah what leeches, giving away money for free, they should be willing to have it stolen by the likes of Steeple and his politician cronies duh!

Yeah, for tax writeoffs, so they can leech back what the rest of us pay in the name of some greedy church.

Hmm, money that will benefit all or some bronze age religion, no contest.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Yeah what leeches, giving away money for free, they should be willing to have it stolen by the likes of Steeple and his politician cronies duh!

Yeah, for tax writeoffs, so they can leech back what the rest of us pay in the name of some greedy church.

Hmm, money that will benefit all or some bronze age religion, no contest.

Does the govt cut them a check if they give x amount?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
This is because the core attitudes of socialism are economic selfishness and coercion. Helping the poor is just a slogan to them, not an actual agenda.

It is a shame we cannot donate the bvllshit you speak in here all day to fertilize countless Saharan farms.

Truth hurts, huh rot? How much do you give? And if you're too poor to donate actual money, then how much time do you volunteer?

Oh wait... whoa... that's right... you're far more concerned with how much other people give, aren't you?

No, I do not donate my money for tax writeoffs, would be nice to see these "charitable" institutions (churches) get taxed like they should and the leeches who use them as writeoffs have to pay their share to society.

So what you're saying is that giving money to charities (which need not be churches BTW) is bad, somehow harmful, and should be discouraged? :roll:

Is this gonna to be yet another one of those threads where you make yourself look stupid and hypocritical over and over again? One cannot donate money without writing it off, and volunteered time isn't even tax deductible (to my knowledge). And there are so many non-church-affiliated private charities out there that I don't know where to start with naming them, although it would be ridiculous to say that there aren't a lot of good religious-based ones as well.

Ah... but the force of government coercion is good, right? And should be the ONLY charity, right? And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: daniel49

.2 is not much of a gain and there have been a lot of claims of inflated subscriber bases/
In addition it is still way behind usa today and wall street journal
http://www.infoplease.com/ipea/A0004420.html

liberal bias? even the NY times admits that

[edit] Self-examination of bias
In summer 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, wrote a piece on the Times' alleged liberal bias.[28] He concluded that the Times did have a liberal bias in coverage of certain social issues, gay marriage being the example he used. He claimed that this bias reflected the paper's cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City.

Okrent did not comment at length on the issue of bias in coverage of "hard news", such as fiscal policy, foreign policy, or civil liberties. However, he noted that the paper's coverage of the Iraq war was, among other things, insufficiently critical of the George W. Bush administration (see below). In May 2005 Okrent was succeeded by Byron Calame.

Additionally in a post-Jayson Blair report to Bill Keller,[29] a committee of Times employees noted:

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times ' editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times#Self-examination_of_bias

I'm not sure how your post is relevant to what I wrote. I suggest you read it again, this time for comprehension. I never said that the NYT was the largest paper in the country. I only took issue with the fact that you said that it's subscription base was shrinking, I cited a reputable third party that said it wasn't.

I also never said that the NYT was not a leftist paper. (although I do think that reports of its bias are greatly exaggerated). I said that newspaper circulation was shrinking by and large due to fundamental changes in the ways that Americans get their news, not due to people being turned off by the editorial slant. This is supported by the broad based, 20 year decline of newspapers regardless of editorial ideology.

I know that as soon as you see a posting defending something about the NYT, your brain probably immediately jumps to that argument that's been had a million times over the possibility of editorial bias there. Unfortunately for you, that's not what's being talked about today. In fact, while its not relevant to what I said its REALLY not relevant to this thread.

My original point (that was relevant) was that people don't want to read about that sort of news... because it is boring. It's the same reason why good news usually ends up on page 5, and the missing baby is front page. Bad things are interesting, good ones... usually not so much.

Edit: Oh yeah, and no matter what your ideology Dick Cheney shooting an old man in the face was insanely hilarious.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic
And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

Funny, our old people do not die in the streets and our freeways are in decent repair, *checks outside* yep, bridges standing well also.

You are such a tool, noone coerces you, you just are a spoiled selfish twit who thinks he lives in his own world.

One day you may realize everything that you are and ever will have you owe to society in one way or another, get over yourself.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Bill Gates gave a thousand times as much as Cheney so by this logic "Libs Rulezor!!"

Also is Cheney giving to "charities" that benefit his friends and relatives the way the elder Bushes do? (A "charity" that funnels money to Neil Bush's software company)

I'm not surprised that religous conservatives who believe in tithing donate more cash to charities than agnostic/atheist liberals, but that's just one measure of how much a person cares.

For example, some people go on a crusade to educate the world about climate change instead.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Conservatives = let everyone else clean up their messes, pay their taxes, whine when they do not get their way and throw up BS catchwords like "liberty" and "individualism" when they are nothing but the United States spoiled children who think the world is owed to them and they should not have to do their share.

Oh yes, and I see you're going to start up again on your little editing of every post you make after the fact. :roll:

First, I don't like these labels you throw about, like "liberal" and "conservative." What you stereotype as "liberal" is not actually liberal, and what you stereotype as "conservative" is not even remotely conservative. And I find stereotypes of groups of people (any people) to be offensive. Next, I'm sure you'll start ranting about how you can smell conservatives or some bullsh!t like that.

Second, your post is ridiculous in its doublethink given all that you have revealed to this forum about your own personal ideology. You have made it more than abundantly clear on repeated occasions that you think you are owed everything whether you do your share and that everyone who has ever acheived anything owes you everything. Your entire tone is nothing but a constant rant of selfishness, hatred, and bitterness, on and on like a broken record.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

Funny, our old people do not die in the streets and our freeways are in decent repair, *checks outside* yep, bridges standing well also.

You are such a tool, noone coerces you, you just are a spoiled selfish twit who thinks he lives in his own world.

Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

Funny, our old people do not die in the streets and our freeways are in decent repair, *checks outside* yep, bridges standing well also.

You are such a tool, noone coerces you, you just are a spoiled selfish twit who thinks he lives in his own world.

What does your little diatribe here have anything to do with what I said? Social Security and infrastructure programs are not charities, unless you think that being given back your own money is somehow charitable...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

As usual, you are wrong. Elder poverty was the norm and horrific in the US before social security. Read your history sometime.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87


Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

Because they did not live long enough to see retirement, you worked yourself to death with no safety net or depended on whoever would put you up.

No thanks, I will rather stand on my own two feet when I get old then leech off my family.

But then some folks do this from birth and think everything when handed to them by family makes them "individualists".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic
And this despite the fact that the government is so inefficient as a charity that if the government were an actual charity the government would shut it down, right?

Funny, our old people do not die in the streets and our freeways are in decent repair, *checks outside* yep, bridges standing well also.

You are such a tool, noone coerces you, you just are a spoiled selfish twit who thinks he lives in his own world.

Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

Nonwithstanding the fact that people live longer on average now than they used due to advances in medical science, prior to the advent of Social Security, most poor old people were cared for by relatives or by charities (who still bear the brunt of the work IMO, but what do I know, I volunteered for meals-on-wheels last Thursday). The initial government programs for helping the poor elderly were county poor farms.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

As usual, you are wrong. Elder poverty was the norm and horrific in the US before social security. Read your history sometime.

We arent talking poverty bumbo, we are talking about elderly keeling over in the streets.

 

[Steeplerot]

So, leeching off your family is ok, sounds about right for the bunch of conservative trust fund kids in here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87


Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

Because they did not live long enough to see retirement, you worked yourself to death with no safety net or depended on whoever would put you up.

No thanks, I will rather stand on my own two feet when I get old then leech off my family.

But then some folks do this from birth and think everything when handed to them by family makes them "individualists".

You are a most anti-social individual. I really don't think you should lecture anyone about kindness, selflessness, or generousity, when it is obvious that you feel none of those things.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87


Here is a clue for you, relative old people in the 1800s didnt die in the streets either. This was well before the modern welfare system was erected.

Because they did not live long enough to see retirement, you worked yourself to death with no safety net or depended on whoever would put you up.

No thanks, I will rather stand on my own two feet when I get old then leech off my family.

But then some folks do this from birth and think everything when handed to them by family makes them "individualists".

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

You are a most anti-social individual. I really don't think you should lecture anyone about kindness, selflessness, or generousity, when it is obvious that you feel none of those things.

Do us a favor and pull your head out next time you grab for some nonsensical random factoid that you know nothing about from your ass about me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
So, leeching off your family is ok, sounds about right for the bunch of conservative trust fund kids in here.

Ah... and here we go with more stereotypes and generalizing. Do you forget now how you used to insult me because I admitted that I grew up low income?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

Some people see society and community as a family, not just people out to get you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

You are a most anti-social individual. I really don't think you should lecture anyone about kindness, selflessness, or generousity, when it is obvious that you feel none of those things.

Do us a favor and pull your head out next time you grab for some nonsensical random factoid that you know nothing about from your ass about me.

I am only telling you what you are telling us. Maybe you ought to read what you post?

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

You are a most anti-social individual. I really don't think you should lecture anyone about kindness, selflessness, or generousity, when it is obvious that you feel none of those things.

Do us a favor and pull your head out next time you grab for some nonsensical random factoid that you know nothing about from your ass about me.

I am only telling you what you are telling us. Maybe you ought to read what you post?

Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

Some people see society and community as a family, not just people out to get you.

This statement makes no sense given the personal feelings you revealed to us about how you feel about your own family.

Like family, society and community is something that works best when it works together, with each person being allowed input, and not just some dictating to others.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Genx87

Translation, I wont leech off my family, Ill leech off the rest of society.
Your selfishness showing through again.

Some people see society and community as a family, not just people out to get you.

This statement makes no sense given the personal feelings you revealed to us about how you feel about your own family.

Like family, society and community is something that works best when it works together, with each person being allowed input, and not just some dictating to others.

Wrong, we choose who dictates what by voting for said person, you are off in some la la land again vic, come back. This is america not some libertarian sh1thole in africa.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Vic

You are a most anti-social individual. I really don't think you should lecture anyone about kindness, selflessness, or generousity, when it is obvious that you feel none of those things.

Do us a favor and pull your head out next time you grab for some nonsensical random factoid that you know nothing about from your ass about me.

I am only telling you what you are telling us. Maybe you ought to read what you post?

Tax write offs are not generous, it is a self serving loophole for the greedy.

What does this response have to do with this line of discussion except as an attempt at a red herring? You have already admitted to us here that you do not give AT ALL.