|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2011 9:15:03 GMT -5
I was looking at the disparity between the charitable giving between liberals and conservatives, and even moderate liberals like W. Cheney gives 77% of his income to charity. W's is always more than 10%. The Obamas give about 5%. The Kerrys? Some years they give zero, but most years, it's less than 1%.
When someone was complaining about how well liberals spend other people's money on redistribution schemes, but not their own for charity, Bertrand Russell said, "We're socialists not Christians!"
An honest liberal!
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 22, 2011 10:28:44 GMT -5
As always, you lie. Regarding Kerry, even National Review admits that they make considerable contributions: old.nationalreview.com/york/york200404150851.aspRegarding Cheney, the figures you cite refer to one year - 2005 - in which Cheney took advantage of a one-tim tax benefit/loophole for Katrina victims. His large-seeming charitable contribution resulted in a tax savings of $1 million. So there goes the notion that he did it out of some philanthropic sense of virtue as you suggest. taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html
|
|
|
Post by rstewart on Mar 22, 2011 10:33:03 GMT -5
Is it considered a lie if one is mistaken?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2011 10:44:26 GMT -5
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 22, 2011 10:49:07 GMT -5
And in 2005, Cheney was interested in loopholes.
So when you claim that the Kerrys, "give zero, but most years, it's less than 1%", you forgot to mention that your data is almost 20 years old and that they have been far more generous in recent years.
So are you mistaken or are you just being dishonest?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2011 13:32:14 GMT -5
I'm comparing apples to apples; track record to track record.
The same way I do with the WSJ in tracking stocks and mutual funds. I don't care what they do for one quarter, or even for one year.
That kind of giving is pretty routine for the Cheneys.
At least the Clintons put their money where their mouths are. They give almost 10% regularly.
Compare that to Owl Gore, which has usually been well below 1%, although it did spike up to just over 5% one year.
Biden's is pretty dismal as well. Over a 10 year period he earned $2,450,042 and donated $3,690.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 22, 2011 14:07:08 GMT -5
I'm comparing apples to apples; track record to track record. No, you're hackishly regurgitating cherry-picked data from Ann Coulter and Peter Schwiezer to make broad, sweeping generalizations about people you see as your "enemy". You could at least give these partisan hacks the credit for the specious arguments that you try to pass of as your own on this message board.
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Mar 22, 2011 14:42:19 GMT -5
I'm liberal i don't give shit, they can go work for it like I do. charity begins at home my home wife and kids. I did buy a MDA shamrock for a $1.00 twice at Cookes food store. Hows that for honesty?
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2011 14:43:45 GMT -5
Funny, but I consider the Clintons "my enemy" since they are against the US Constitution, yet I cite them in a positive light. (I don't know who Peter Schwiezer is, and I challenge you to show where Ann Coulter has ever said anything positive about the Clintons. She may have, but I've never seen it.)
Something there about no cherry-picking, it seems, to give credit to the Clintons (who, according to you are my "enemies"), while pointing out the hypocrisies of the Obamas, Gores, and Kerrys.
Oh, wait, it's not hypocrisy! They're socialists, not Christians!
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 22, 2011 14:46:31 GMT -5
Oh, wait, it's not hypocrisy! They're socialists, not Christians! This is just more of your hackish, nonsensical gibberish.
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Mar 22, 2011 14:58:08 GMT -5
Bush was again the constitution too he's my enemy as well.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Mar 22, 2011 15:19:27 GMT -5
Yep. He was far, far too left.
|
|
Action!
Full Forumite
Inaction never works!
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by Action! on Mar 28, 2011 8:16:30 GMT -5
As most "righties" are. Righties will tell you one thing to your face or to the national media, then go home and to the complete opposite.
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 28, 2011 17:22:33 GMT -5
Hell, that's everybody.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Mar 28, 2011 19:16:11 GMT -5
No kidding 'worm. It's just much more pronounced in those with a heavy political agenda.
|
|
|
Post by creekcat62 on Mar 29, 2011 11:54:29 GMT -5
As if no "Leftie" would ever do the same.
|
|
TNBear
Senior Forumite
Posts: 2,285
|
Post by TNBear on Mar 29, 2011 19:22:33 GMT -5
Thank you for admitting that this is an ongoing "rightie" tactic.
Yes, the "lefties" practice this as well, although possibly not quite as often. Politicians of any party or movement are lying s**tweasles who desire the power and money that come with the position, and will say or do almost anything to attain their booty.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Mar 29, 2011 19:43:36 GMT -5
But the rightists are much better at it.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Mar 29, 2011 20:11:55 GMT -5
Right, left, no difference when it comes to politicians. bit.ly/gKekiy
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 29, 2011 20:18:20 GMT -5
Such a casual descent into zero-sum nihilism is a de facto acceptance of the dysfunctional status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Mar 29, 2011 20:28:35 GMT -5
Such a casual descent into zero-sum nihilism is a de facto acceptance of the dysfunctional status quo. What I have accepted is that as long as we have left/right, Republican/Democrat and an apathetic citizenry that makes their decisions based on labels rather than on character there is little I can do to change government. So, I'll continue to try to make people understand that character counts far more than labels.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 29, 2011 20:44:14 GMT -5
So "character" is your criterion? That's awfully subjective. Care to define the method by which you determine the "character" of a political leader?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Mar 29, 2011 21:01:20 GMT -5
No, you need to define that for yourself. Just put it ahead of ideology and don't let your candidate's chance to win be any consideration at all.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 29, 2011 21:05:43 GMT -5
So you rely on a judgement of a political leader's character but have no means of assessing it?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Mar 30, 2011 5:41:57 GMT -5
So you rely on a judgement of a political leader's character but have no means of assessing it? I have my personal criteria. I suggest you develop your own personal criteria. I respect a principled man (or woman) but I want those principles to come with priorities and without pride.
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Mar 30, 2011 6:46:51 GMT -5
But, Pompey can't do that! He needs you to define character and give him a way to know if it's good or bad so he can attack your definitions with shadows! It's the only way he knows to converse.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Mar 30, 2011 7:29:28 GMT -5
My understanding was that this was a "debate lounge", where ideas are to be examined closely and openly challenged - especially rather abstract, subjective ideas like "political character", whatever on earth that is. Apparently some here take some degree of umbrage that vague ideas are being questioned and clarifications are being sought, and others view questioning and criticism as "censorship". This is beyond puzzling and troubling in its wrongheadedness.
|
|
|
Post by Warkitty on Mar 30, 2011 7:42:44 GMT -5
Please define in specific terms exactly how your adversarial questioning style benefits the discussion threads? Do you find more open conversation occurs, or do you expect more adverse reactions to your questioning? Do you find questioning every word and phrase of others while refusing to answer any questions asked to engender a fair and open debate? Have you found, and please provide sources, that your questioning style brings more people into a discussion or debate, or drives them away?
|
|
JC
Full Forumite
No Messiah
Posts: 1,919
|
Post by JC on Mar 30, 2011 10:56:06 GMT -5
What I have accepted is that as long as we have left/right, Republican/Democrat and an apathetic citizenry that makes their decisions based on labels rather than on character there is little I can do to change government. So, I'll continue to try to make people understand that character counts far more than labels. This single post is the smartest post I have ever read here. It seems that the "Democratic-Republican" party that our great nation grew from has been long lost to followers only looking at an "R" and an "L".
|
|
|
Post by daworm on Mar 30, 2011 11:43:38 GMT -5
There was an article in the TFP I think yesterday about a Democrat trying to lower the requirements for a TN third party candidate to get their party listed on TN ballots from roughly 40,000 registered voter signatures to 10,000 eligible voter signatures. It went on about how there has been some push back by Republicans because right now, everything is counted based on registered voters, not eligible voters.
But the point was missed completely. Third party candidates get on the ballot all the time. The only thing this would change is whether next to their name it said "Independent" or their party name.
Let that sink in a bit.
What they are trying to do is take advantage of the fact that most voters don't do their research and know who the candidates are. They may have read something about the Green party or the Libertarian party and thought they liked those ideas, but when they see the ballot, there are no Green or Libertarian candidates on it, so they go with the Democrats or Republicans, because if they pick one of those Independents, why, they might get a Communist or Basil Marceaux.
To me, crap like this makes me want to reintroduce poll exams. If you can't pass a simple test about the candidates, you have no right to vote for them. It's not like reconstruction where blacks couldn't read. Nowadays, not being able to read also should keep someone from voting. Not every opinion should count.
|
|