Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
That's bull ****. I know plenty of selfish, self-centered Democrats and Republicans. Selfish people are selfish.

I'd say that the Republicans/Conservative ideology is selfish by definition, in the purest sense of the word.

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Really? The people making most of the money are giving more to charity than those struggling to make ends meet? That's amazing. Of course, what you're really talking about are tax write-offs. If guilt-driven charity is enough, why are we even having this conversation?

Posted
I'd say that the Republicans/Conservative ideology is selfish by definition, in the purest sense of the word.

 

There is nothing selfish about the principles of self sufficiency and personal responsibility. There is also nothing selfish about people keeping the fruits of their labor or the equal opportunity to succeed or to fail.

Posted
I don't disagree with any of that. I simply stop way short of where most Conservatives line up on how far we should go with these programs. No matter what the system, a certain percentage of people will abuse it. That doesn't mean the system is bad as a whole.

 

This is a falacious argument, because empirical evidence will show that "certain percentage" will be a high number.

 

Everything in the world revolves around the Pareto distribution. Always has, always will.

Posted
I'd say that the Republicans/Conservative ideology is selfish by definition, in the purest sense of the word.

 

I've figured out how to take care of myself financially just so you don't have to. See I'm not selfish, I did it all for you.

Posted
Really? The people making most of the money are giving more to charity than those struggling to make ends meet? That's amazing. Of course, what you're really talking about are tax write-offs. If guilt-driven charity is enough, why are we even having this conversation?

So to recap:

 

You: Republicans are selfish and hate helping people.

 

Me: Actually, republicans are more charitable than liberals by over 30%.

 

You: Of course they are...they have all the money, they're guilty and they need tax write-offs.

 

Me: So charity on behalf of liberals is more sincere and real because they don't need tax write offs and have no guilt? Really? REALLY?

 

Someone tell Conner to polish up the tiara while Frenkle measures his noggin.

Posted
So to recap:

 

You: Republicans are selfish and hate helping people.

 

Me: Actually, republicans are more charitable than liberals by over 30%.

 

You: Of course they are...they have all the money, they're guilty and they need tax write-offs.

 

Me: So charity on behalf of liberals is more sincere and real because they don't need tax write offs and have no guilt? Really? REALLY?

 

Someone tell Conner to polish up the tiara while Frenkle measures his noggin.

 

Breaking it down so simply only conveniences your idea, which is a really really selfish move.

Posted
Why would liberals give to charity the "hard earned" money they've received through government handouts?

 

Wait...so if you just like...sign up for the democrat party, you automatically get a government handout? I thought you said only blacks get government handouts, not all donating liberals. You really threw me for a curve-ball on that one.

Posted
Holy shite. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, though I certainly lean to the left.

 

The thing about Republicans is that they're selfish. You can't adopt that kind of mentality without being completely self-centered and having an utter lack of empathy toward the plight of less fortunate people. Every man for himself. That said, neither extreme is very appealing. One shouldn't strive to rely on others if they are able to take care of themselves. At the same time, these self-proclaimed Christians should be the last people to turn their backs on their fellow man.

 

In the end, it's the utter hypocrisy and backward-thinking of the Republican party that really tips the scales for me.

 

 

 

Well put. :w00t:

Posted

I must have hit a nerve or three to get so many indignant responses. :w00t:

 

All ya'll can justify it however you want. You obvious already have lots invested in your rationalizations. Nothing is so black-and-white of course. This was more of a response-in-kind to the extreme righty circle jerk that was in progress. LABillz gets to eat the cookie!

Posted
How is taking something to give to someone else charity ?

 

 

 

I said well put mainly to the bolded areas of this statement

 

Holy shite. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, though I certainly lean to the left.

 

The thing about Republicans is that they're selfish. You can't adopt that kind of mentality without being completely self-centered and having an utter lack of empathy toward the plight of less fortunate people. Every man for himself. That said, neither extreme is very appealing. One shouldn't strive to rely on others if they are able to take care of themselves. At the same time, these self-proclaimed Christians should be the last people to turn their backs on their fellow man.

 

In the end, it's the utter hypocrisy and backward-thinking of the Republican party that really tips the scales for me.

Posted
At the same time, these self-proclaimed Christians should be the last people to turn their backs on their fellow man.

 

Charity should not be a government program.

 

How it should work.

 

I see a person in need and hand them $10 they get $10.

 

How it does work.

 

The Government sees a needy person and takes $10 from me.

Pays the collection staff $2

Pays the gevernment contractor $2 to process the paper work

Pays themselves $2

Pays the delivery person $2

 

Gives the needy person $2

 

Which way works better?

 

:w00t:

Posted
Charity should not be a government program.

 

How it should work.

 

I see a person in need and hand them $10 they get $10.

 

How it does work.

 

The Government sees a needy person and takes $10 from me.

Pays the collection staff $2

Pays the gevernment contractor $2 to process the paper work

Pays themselves $2

Pays the delivery person $2

 

Gives the needy person $2

 

Which way works better?

 

:D

The first way of course, provided needs are met strictly through charity. Talk about fairies and unicorns... :w00t:

 

Incidentally, any private charity that you may decide to contribute to has the EXACT same issues.

Posted
I've figured out how to take care of myself financially just so you don't have to. See I'm not selfish, I did it all for you.

 

Yes, I'm a Robert Ringer disciple. I think "Looking Out For # One" is a noble endeavor. I believe that if I take care of myself you won't have to take care of me. On the other hand, the Frenkles and pBill seem to look forward to their next SSI cost of living increase while complaining about standing in line for their allotment of government cheese.

Posted
The first way of course, provided needs are met strictly through charity. Talk about fairies and unicorns... :w00t:

 

Incidentally, any private charity that you may decide to contribute to has the EXACT same issues.

 

If you're paying to a charity that's only 20% efficient with your money, you're paying to the wrong charity.

 

I want to say (without double checking my numbers) that most good charities run at 80%+ efficiency with your money. I'm sure someone will correct my estimate shortly.

Posted
The first way of course, provided needs are met strictly through charity. Talk about fairies and unicorns... :w00t:

 

Incidentally, any private charity that you may decide to contribute to has the EXACT same issues.

 

Proof? Link? Do you have anything here or are you just running at the mouth and making up more "facts"?

Posted
Yes, I'm a Robert Ringer disciple. I think "Looking Out For # One" is a noble endeavor. I believe that if I take care of myself you won't have to take care of me. On the other hand, the Frenkles and pBill seem to look forward to their next SSI cost of living increase while complaining about standing in line for their allotment of government cheese.

Blow me. I work hard, am very good at my job and have a solid career with a bright future. I've never taken unemployment, even when I was briefly unemployed in 2001. I do, however, realize that not everyone is like me and that the world does not begin and end with me. I can't seem to rationalize simply looking out for #1, and that's where my godless morals kick in and we drift apart in our worldviews.

Posted
Incidentally, any private charity that you may decide to contribute to has the EXACT same issues.

 

 

I'll remember that next time I'm about to give money to a homeless person.

 

This reminds me of why I stopped giving to PBS. They lead you to believe that you are contributing to save the programming you like. Maybe it is something non-political like Dr Who. But they take your money and use it to support politically-charged programing like Frontline instead. Your show doesn't stay on if it merely pays for itself, it has to be a cash-cow for things you may not support.

×
×
  • Create New...