Politics and Religion

Stop trying to change the subject with your cynicism
Officer Cartman 59 Reviews 399 reads
posted

The point of the OP is that it has been documented that Republicans officials are much, much more charitable than Democrat officials.  And the current administration highlights it.  They claim to care about the needy but NEVER put their money where their mouth is.  

Your personal, cynical view on charity is what is truly worthless.

nuguy461520 reads

will the progressives - that have a monoply on the board brains -  pls cite the stats of the charitable contributions given by the worst VP in history? by the country's second black prez? by Romney?

True charity is tax dollars being dumped into a black hole of failed government programs.  It has nothing to do with actually contributing time and capital to organizations of your choice.

If not, it's not true charity giving! Just some more worthless sarcasm!   ;)

P.S. Having been involved with various churches and non-profit organizations, there is very little true charity giving. If you took away the tax breaks, and the attempts to gain influence within the organization, you'd have very little charity giving at all.

The point of the OP is that it has been documented that Republicans officials are much, much more charitable than Democrat officials.  And the current administration highlights it.  They claim to care about the needy but NEVER put their money where their mouth is.  

Your personal, cynical view on charity is what is truly worthless.

It's not cynicism when it's personal experience. And, I did address the issue. I'm betting Romney seldom gave any money to his church or charitable organizations where he didn't reap a great deal of benefit (see link). And, just because someone gave less than him, doesn't mean "they claim to care about the needy but NEVER put their money where their mouth is. It just means they didn't give as much. Nice try at the global invalidation!  ;)

Democrat officials give a lower percentage of their income to charity as well.  Obama and Biden are two of the stingiest.  And that's their personal choice.  It just sorta clashes with the bullshit they spew since they are part of the 1% but are greedier than most.

sounds like the answer is NO.

BTW, traveling in liberal circles, it's understandable this would be your experiences. liberals are great at handing out OPM.

Pay checks (welfare) to lazy, do nothing, dope smoking, internet surfing, message board posting, uesless government employees charity too?


Thank you
2012 = GOP

nuguy46344 reads

the Dems are either silent or go off on a tangent.......in the dems mind, charity is using someone else's money to give to a group that THEY believe should receive........Must be embarrassing to have it thrown in your face that the 2 clowns you voted for and continue to support, couldn't use their OWN money to give to a credible charity.  Come this November, we'll see the newpapers, TV, YouTube covered with these pretenders in soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.....posing for a photo op (which probably lasted less than 30 minutes).......

And, how do you know Romney is giving a bigger percent when you don't know how much he has. Don't forget those off=shore accounts!   ;)

the bigger problem is that we live in a society that is based on maximizing the reward to a single individual for doing his utmost to maximize the misery of others. We call this capitalism. We say it works because of how well it rewards a single individual.

A system that is based upon competition is a system that is based upon harming others. If the Acme Widget Company made 150 million last year, and they make 150 million this year, then that's counted as a loss. That is insane.

We have a country where someone can have own 12 homes, 11 of which one would assume he can't use, at any given night there are millions of empty hotel rooms, and there's millions of homeless people living on the street. For some reason, we call capitalism efficient.

A system that fails to utilize the labor of millions of people, and by it's very design, is made to create perpetual unemployment for some, that requires charity, both private and public, just to have some semblence of showing human decency is not a system worth perserving.

There are consequences to living like this. There are now more vacant homes in this country than there are homeless people. 11.4% of every home in America is being left to rot. Could al Qaeda ever hope to accomplish such a thing? What's the difference between New Yorkers jumping out of the WTC and Chinese workers jumping out of Foxconn building?

What would this country, and indeed this world, look like if we just pitched this failed idea of capitalism into the trashbin of history? What if we instead developed an economic system by which the only way for one person to get richer is if we all got richer. What if we lived in a society where the economy can shrink next year, and no one loses their job? What if we lived in a world where the people who do the shittiest and hardest jobs got the most money, and those doing the easiest jobs got the least? Would charity even be necessary in such a world?

nuguy46479 reads

is your game?

did u look at where the USSR is/was?  europe?  want the board to contribute for your one way ticket from the country everyone in the world - except you - wants to live!

Nu, you really are quite possibly the dumbest son-of-a-bitch I have ever talked politics with. I can guarandamntee you that you couldn't define socialism or communism unless you did a google search. Even then, you'd just copy and paste something without reading it. I can also guarantee that you couldn't define capitalism either.

Or you could prove me wrong. How would the allocation of goods and services differ between a capitalist and communist economy?

Yeh, I know, you won't answer that question. You're either ignore it, or come up with some simpleton line like, "if you're too dumb to know, then I'm not going to tell you!"

One could write endless volumes on the things you don't know. Fuck, you don't seem to know the difference between the communist Soviet Union, and capitalist "Europe". Of course, you use the word "Europe" because you've never heard of half the countries there, much less find it on a fucking map.  

You're simply a fucking idiot. If someone handed you a paperback copy of the Federalist Papers or the Wealth of Nations with cover torn off, you'd think you're reading excerpts from the Communist Manisfest and Mein Kampf.

So, I suspect that going into the different parties that were involved in the First Internationale might just be a little lost on you. All you know is that calling someone a "communist" or a "socialist" is an insult. Why is it an insult? Fuck if you know.

The only thing you know is that "communism" and "socialism" and whatever other "ism" you can pull out of your idiotic ass is a very bad thing. Communism is bad. Why? You don't know, it's just bad. Socialism? It's bad too. Why? Because it's bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. With a double-plus ungood cherry on top. Oops, my bad, an Orwell reference is probably lost on you too.

nuguy46367 reads

where do u want to live out the rest of life willy......ticket is on us!

Register Now!