Recommended Posts
rehmwa 2
Bush could.
That would be hilarious. Watch Soros backing down so fast..
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
That would be hilarious. Watch Soros backing down so fast..
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Trent 0
He's just talking shit and you know it. Nothing is more important to that guy than his money. Him "saying" that he'd give up his billions to see Bush out of office is just a way to get attention for his pet cause. Do you really think he would do it?? No way in hell. It'd be funny if he put it in writing, all official-like, then Bush stepped down. I wonder how much legal wrangling he'd do to get out of it. Just another rich dude talkin shit, and you know it.
Oh, hello again!
That's the difference I see between rich conservatives and rich liberals. The liberals don't mind that some of their money is used to better society. The conservatives want to keep it all for themselves, screw everyone else.
QuoteI can't believe the conservatives around here have nothing to say about this.
Well, this conservative is a "Centrist." Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have polarized both parties to the far reaches of right and left.
The old one-dimensional categories of "right" and "left," established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape.
It's time for a new young group of politicals to step up and help change the landscape.
Muenkel 0
QuoteThe conservatives want to keep it all for themselves, screw everyone else.
Kev,
If you realized how much my "Conservative" parents have given away to charity over the years, you'd realize that statement is pure drivel.
Chris
_________________________________________
Chris
rehmwa 2
Good point M - I can't find the link, but there's a story out there about the counties voting republican giving more to charity than the counties voting Dem in the last pres election. Someone help out here with a link, I'm sure there was a post.
Anyway, a faceless government 'giving' charity to those who 'demand' it does not "better society". It hurts society. Perhaps the only benefit in charity is when it's direct and personal so those receiving understand it's a gift, not a right and perhaps try to improve their own lot as a result.
Charity should be voluntary. It's not a matter of wanting to greedily keep your own money, it's a matter of having the 'choice' to direct your money where you want, not some government official. That's the Big Brother I'm worried about.
And the rich liberals don't believe in giving away their own money, they believe in policies that require everyone to give, even to causes they don't believe in.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Anyway, a faceless government 'giving' charity to those who 'demand' it does not "better society". It hurts society. Perhaps the only benefit in charity is when it's direct and personal so those receiving understand it's a gift, not a right and perhaps try to improve their own lot as a result.
Charity should be voluntary. It's not a matter of wanting to greedily keep your own money, it's a matter of having the 'choice' to direct your money where you want, not some government official. That's the Big Brother I'm worried about.
And the rich liberals don't believe in giving away their own money, they believe in policies that require everyone to give, even to causes they don't believe in.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
QuoteAnd the rich liberals don't believe in giving away their own money, they believe in policies that require everyone to give, even to causes they don't believe in.
The thing is, we live in a diverse society. I've seen lots of comments from conservatives on here that sex education is bad, that AIDS awareness funding is bad, that pbc support is bad. Well, these things and many others generally help the less fortunate. And those conservatives with money don't feel they are worthwhile because they don't get anything out of them. If the people with money only gave to those charities that benefited them, or that they felt were worthwhile, a lot of services that are worthwhile to a different segment of society with less assets at their disposal would be neglected. The key words here being society. Living in a society is a compromise, otherwise it's anarchy. It seems to me that a lot (not all, I'm generalizing here) of conservatives want others to compromise their lifestyles to fit into what they deem morally appropriate, but they don't want to compromise their finances to benefit those less fortunate.
I know a lot of conservatives give to charity, it was a generalization.
Muenkel 0
Bill,
Actually you are on to something. There was a study done on charitable giving broken down by geography. I wish I had the link, but I am sure someone who is more computer savvy than me could find it. Anyway, the study showed that New England, the bastion of liberalism, was the cheapest region of the country when it came to giving money to charities. Also, there was another study that showed the states with the highest income per capita were in New England...Connecticut leading the pack.
Chris
_________________________________________
Chris
Actually you are on to something. There was a study done on charitable giving broken down by geography. I wish I had the link, but I am sure someone who is more computer savvy than me could find it. Anyway, the study showed that New England, the bastion of liberalism, was the cheapest region of the country when it came to giving money to charities. Also, there was another study that showed the states with the highest income per capita were in New England...Connecticut leading the pack.
Chris
_________________________________________
Chris
rehmwa 2
QuoteIf the people with money only gave to those charities that benefited them, or that they felt were worthwhile, a lot of services that are worthwhile to a different segment of society with less assets at their disposal would be neglected.
That's a nice reply. Seriously.
First, though, let's simply say "If people with money only gave to those charities that they felt were worthwhile" for whatever reason and leave it at that. No need to hide in the statement the "that benefits them", it's assuming a greed that's not founded even though all charity is self gratifying for different reasons to different people. So I could attribute selfishness to the whole mass regardless of political leanings (or sprintings).
Your answer is clear that you don't think people are smart enough to do the right thing in terms of giving on a socially responsible scale.
I do.
That's a fundamental difference in how I personally view the debate. I know it's simplified, but sometimes things are simple - if you let it be.
Politicians push different social programs for VOTES, not from altruism. We can take care of business without the beaureaucrats and likely do it better and more cost effectively.
that's all
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
Amazon 7
QuoteWell, this conservative is a "Centrist." Over the years, both Republicans and Democrats have polarized both parties to the far reaches of right and left.
It's time for a new young group of politicals to step up and help change the landscape.
Very well said, Keith, a return to a nation that actually leads in the world by example rather than by fear would make my heart swell with pride as an American.
QuoteThat's the difference I see between rich conservatives and rich liberals.
I wonder how a liberal gets rich. Shouldn't they be giving their money to someone who really needs it?
never pull low......unless you are
It seems to me that a lot (not all, I'm generalizing here) of conservatives want others to compromise their lifestyles to fit into what they deem morally appropriate,
Yes, I feel that it would be morally appropriate for people that can, to work for a living. Even if it compromises their lifestyle.
never pull low......unless you are
Bush could. How about he gets to pick what ever worthwhile causes he thinks the billions would go to if he steps down. Do you think he would do it?
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites