• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inviting our Liberal Bretheren to put up or shut up.

Oftencold

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
5,044
Reaction score
2,202
Location
A small village in Alaska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I notice that my Liberal neighbors are constantly talking about how much more they care about the poor, the downtrodden and the unfortunate.

I have always suspected that thus was nonsense, and now it seems that there is some concrete proof, and a dawning awareness of this truth on the Left.

“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”

Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
LINK

I expect that there will be some denials, protestations and accusations of deceit. It should be entertaining.
 
From the article:

That article said:
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.

It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.
But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

This is not to say that charitable donations to church don't "count"; it's as generous and selfless as any other philanthropy. Just that this has more to do with culture and spirituality than it does with politics.

Furthermore: It's irrelevant to the truth of any given ideology and leaning. I may give 25% of my yearly income to charity, and you may give none, but that doesn't make what I believe any more or less truthful, likewise for yourself.
 
I notice that my Liberal neighbors are constantly talking about how much more they care about the poor, the downtrodden and the unfortunate.

I have always suspected that thus was nonsense, and now it seems that there is some concrete proof, and a dawning awareness of this truth on the Left.




LINK

I expect that there will be some denials, protestations and accusations of deceit. It should be entertaining.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here, but this appears to be very much an extreme generalization, especially from the title. "Inviting our Liberal Bretheren(sp) to put up or shut up." Hmmm...that's assuming your liberal brethren actually believe in the manner in which you accuse them of. I don't think being a caring or giving person has anything to do with liberal or conservative alignment as it does with being well...just a caring or giving person.

This seems to be nothing more than an attempt at partisan spit ball combat.

Have fun picking fights based on generalizations.
 
Last edited:
. . .I don't think being a caring or giving person has anything to do with liberal or conservative alignment as it does with being well...just a caring or giving person. . .
Why, of course it does!

There are underlying philosophies at work about how each school of thought sees people. I believe, based on experience and analysis, is that in this time and place, and in the current usage of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", the latter has a far more benign mindset than the former.

I just think that things like this illustrate the point.
 
Last edited:
I love the divisive way the title is worded-- "Inviting our liberal brethren to put up or shut up". It's worded as if we're a bunch of conservatives sitting around whining about dang liberals, or something.
It sets up this completely false us-versus-them dichotomy, almost as if it's inviting us to say, "Oh those crazy liberals are at it again!"
 
Why, of course it does!

There are underlying philosophies at work about how each school of thought sees people. I believe, based on experience and analysis, is that in this time and place, and in the current usage of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", the latter has is a far more benign mindset than the former.

I just think that things like this illustrate the point.

The current usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are part of the problem. Who makes the rules here? Who determines what liberals and conservatives are supposed to think? I'm a liberal, but only to a degree. I don't agree for a minute that "liberal" is necessarily more benign than "conservative." Then again, I don't believe in stereotypes or in trying to put people into categorical boxes based upon the terminology they believe most closely identifies their point of view on things.
 
The current usage of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are part of the problem. Who makes the rules here? Who determines what liberals and conservatives are supposed to think? I'm a liberal, but only to a degree. I don't agree for a minute that "liberal" is necessarily more benign than "conservative." Then again, I don't believe in stereotypes or in trying to put people into categorical boxes based upon the terminology they believe most closely identifies their point of view on things.
Unfortunately, the terms are the tools we have to work with good sir.

A few years back I remember activities on my college campus protesting the condition of the poorly housed in South Africa. The students had actually built a mock shanty town on the college lawns.

The students involved would certainly have been called "Liberal" by most commentators in our country today. This was one of the events that turned me firmly away from modern Liberalism.

The reason for this was that I had gotten familiar with some of the homeless living under bridges, and in vacant warehouses in downtown Tampa.

The images appalled me. Here were kids putting out great effort to protest the condition of the poor far away, when a few miles away were people they could actually help with the same level of effort.

Over time I came to realize that the students wanted to feel good about their cause, but certainly didn't want to interact with any "disgusting" street people.

In the meantime, I saw much less self-absorbed, no doubt largely "conservative" Church people show up along the riverfront and provide meals, counseling and haircuts for the poor.

The haircuts especially impressed me, because it involved such personal contact between the giver and the recipient.

So it is from this and other much more personal experiences that I learned to disdain those who embrace beautiful words but eschew dirty hands. To me this often comes down to the current division between "Liberalism," and "Conservatism," as applied to social issues.
 
I love the divisive way the title is worded-- "Inviting our liberal brethren to put up or shut up". It's worded as if we're a bunch of conservatives sitting around whining about dang liberals, or something.
It sets up this completely false us-versus-them dichotomy, almost as if it's inviting us to say, "Oh those crazy liberals are at it again!"
Modern Liberalism tends to believe in confiscation of wealth (taxation) to fund Utopian programs to aid selected recipients.

I posit that the Liberals should take a stand and surrender their treasure voluntarily, at least to the statistical degree that Greedyevilselfish Conservatives do, in order that they may demonstrate the purity of their hearts and worthiness of their vision.

Thus they are advised to "put up or shut up" about wanting more of money that does not belong to them.

You see?
 
Last edited:
Modern Liberalism tends to believe in confiscation of wealth (taxation) to fund Utopian programs to aid selected recipients.

I posit that the Liberals should take a stand and surrender their treasure voluntarily, at least to the statistical degree that Greedevilselfish Conservatives do, in order that they may demonstrate the purity of their hearts and worthiness of their vision.

Thus they are advised to "put up or shut up" about wanting more of money that does not belong to them.

You see?
I'm not the one making sweeping generalizations about groups of people. You should probably keep that in mind.

In any case, your argument in this post is ridiculous. It's not even directed toward anything, you're just complaining about some sort of vague thing.
It's a complete strawman.
 
Why, of course it does!

There are underlying philosophies at work about how each school of thought sees people. I believe, based on experience and analysis, is that in this time and place, and in the current usage of the terms "Liberal" and "Conservative", the latter has a far more benign mindset than the former.

I just think that things like this illustrate the point.
If it was "benign", you wouldn't be constantly making statements about your "superiority".

You seem to be nothing more than a "nice" aquapub.
 
Modern Liberalism tends to believe in confiscation of wealth (taxation) to fund Utopian programs to aid selected recipients.
What?

Hey, Phil Gramm is not a liberal!
 
If it was "benign", you wouldn't be constantly making statements about your "superiority".

You seem to be nothing more than a "nice" aquapub.
Look, we all talk about obvious things, weather, beautiful women, delicious foods. It's a way to bond.

So, when I talk about the intellectual and moral superiority of Conservatism, its just a way to share things we all experience and know to be true.

It's a "Kumbayah" sort of thing, you know like singing old songs around the campfire.
 
Look, we all talk about obvious things, weather, beautiful women, delicious foods. It's a way to bond.

So, when I talk about the intellectual and moral superiority of Conservatism, its just a way to share things we all experience and know to be true.

It's a "Kumbayah" sort of thing, you know like singing old songs around the campfire.
I never liked that song.

If you want to sing about the virtues of conservatism, I'm all for it. But when you come from the position of moral superiority, I have a problem with that. I don't consider either school of thought superior. There are positives and negatives in both ideologies.
 
I never liked that song.

If you want to sing about the virtues of conservatism, I'm all for it. But when you come from the position of moral superiority, I have a problem with that. I don't consider either school of thought superior. There are positives and negatives in both ideologies.
One of the things that I do find superior about Conservatives, is our greater sense of humor. Catch my drift? ;)

That aside, I feel that an engaged person must make assessments of "superior" and inferior. This applies to political thought, societies, nations and art. Without such judgment, one has no guide as to which direction they'd like to see any of these things move.
 
From your link.
< According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.>

That tells me that they give more money to their church, it don’t say what the charitable acts the church is doing with the bucks.

< But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.>

Of course they do, they have cornered most of the money in the country,at least the part that "Make Off" didn't steal.
;)
 
Last edited:
That tells me that they give more money to their church, it don’t say what the charitable acts the church is doing with the bucks.
No, what tells you this is apparently a lack of understanding on the nature of the charitable activities of Churches.

I recommended that you engage in serious reading and research on the topic, that you might contribute meaningfully to the dialogue.

Of course they do, they have cornered most of the money in the country,at least the part that "Make Off" didn't steal.
;)
This is a fascinating revelation to me. You might imagine my surprise at discovering that even though I cannot afford reliable transportation, home repairs or standard groceries, I am in fact wealthy, because I am a serious conservative. I can think of a few million others who would be similarly surprised.

It would doubtless astound you to learn that my political philosophy evolves from rationality, not from greed, or a desire to protect my nonexistent wealth.
 
Last edited:
Oftencold;1057860851]No, what tells you this is apparently a lack of understanding on the nature of the charitable activities of Churches.

I recommended that you engage in serious reading and research on the topic, that you might contribute meaningfully to the dialogue.



I’m feeling pretty lazy after a rather hectic day of hauling machinery around that is being auctioned off because of the policies of the compassionate conservatives that have been in place for the last eight years. That plus the fact that the crap you posted has been debunked previously.

Maybe the same writer has reissued an old book, or it is a new wrinkle on someone else’s book, typical winger s*** different package. Don’t need to do any search, most religions use their tax-exempt money spreading the message of the second coming, about two percent their tithes go to helping the poor. There is a starting point prove me wrong.



This is a fascinating revelation to me. You might imagine my surprise at discovering that even though I cannot afford reliable transportation, home repairs or standard groceries, I am in fact wealthy, because I am a serious conservative. I can think of a few million others who would be similarly surprised.

It would doubtless astound you to learn that my political philosophy evolves from rationality, not from greed, or a desire to protect my nonexistent wealth.

graph-4-median-household.jpg



The average corporate CEO now makes roughly 250 times the average worker.

Guess who can afford to give more to charity? :roll:
 
I’m feeling pretty lazy after a rather hectic day of hauling machinery around that is being auctioned off because of the policies of the compassionate conservatives that have been in place for the last eight years. That plus the fact that the crap you posted has been debunked previously.

Maybe the same writer has reissued an old book, or it is a new wrinkle on someone else’s book, typical winger s*** different package. Don’t need to do any search, most religions use their tax-exempt money spreading the message of the second coming, about two percent their tithes go to helping the poor. There is a starting point prove me wrong.


graph-4-median-household.jpg



The average corporate CEO now makes roughly 250 times the average worker.

Guess who can afford to give more to charity? :roll:

So...median income changed by less than 2%? Is that what I'm seeing on the graph?

And the busineses going out of business...that doesn't hurt rich people in any way...really?
 
If Brooks' contention were true, poor people would always vote Republican. Or are they too stupid to know who their real friends are? Discuss.
 
So, when I talk about the intellectual and moral superiority of Conservatism, its just a way to share things we all experience and know to be true.


So enlighten me what is so moral and intellectually superior in supporting the Drug War? A war that many including Ron Paul consider to be racist, a waste of police, court and prison resources and of course nothing but a toilet that tax payer money gets flushed down.
 
So...median income changed by less than 2%? Is that what I'm seeing on the graph?

And the busineses going out of business...that doesn't hurt rich people in any way...really?


Of course it hurts rich people when their businesses goes down, but when (the strawman CEO) making more than 250 times the average worker, who can wither the downturn better, and still manage to drop a few quid into the Salvation Army kettle?

That 2006 graph didn’t take into account the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, or the last two years of the Bush economy.
 
Of course it hurts rich people when their businesses goes down, but when (the strawman CEO) making more than 250 times the average worker, who can wither the downturn better, and still manage to drop a few quid into the Salvation Army kettle?

That 2006 graph didn’t take into account the devaluation of the dollar, inflation, or the last two years of the Bush economy.
Thing is though, if they are really this "stingy" rich CEO's that hate their workers and only love money money and money, why are they giving to charity in the first place? Just to piss liberals off? Is this study just some grand scheme for stingy rich CEO's to say "Hah! We are better than you! Bow in my excellence or your FIRED!"
 
Thing is though, if they are really this "stingy" rich CEO's that hate their workers and only love money money and money, why are they giving to charity in the first place? Just to piss liberals off? Is this study just some grand scheme for stingy rich CEO's to say "Hah! We are better than you! Bow in my excellence or your FIRED!"

Wow, build a strawman and pose an unanswerable question in the same sentence.Who knows. End of year taxes? :2wave:
 
One of the things that I do find superior about Conservatives, is our greater sense of humor. Catch my drift? ;)

That aside, I feel that an engaged person must make assessments of "superior" and inferior. This applies to political thought, societies, nations and art. Without such judgment, one has no guide as to which direction they'd like to see any of these things move.
I'm sorry, I don't think in terms of what is the "superior" or "inferior" position. I first think in terms of a Win-Win situation. Which way, is the best way, for both sides to come out with a win. Why does there always have to be a loser?
 
Back
Top Bottom