You just gotta love Limbaugh

Ikohn4ever

CAGiversary!
Feedback
5 (100%)
Limbaugh told his listeners that he was asked by “a major American print publication” to offer a 400-word statement explaining his “hope for the Obama presidency.” He responded:
So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
It hasn’t taken long for Limbaugh to reveal his core hypocrisy. In July 2006, with conservatives in power, Limbaugh offered one of his common screeds against the left. “I’m getting so sick and tired of people rooting for the defeat of the good guys,” he complained.







The country is falling apart, and most likely a failure of Obama could have serious financial and national safety risks. So much for putting country first.
 
Limbaugh thinks Obama is one of the "bad guys".

I hope bigger government initiatives will fail, too, but it isn't like any party is pushing smaller government initiatives.
 
So has anyone quoted him yet? I mean, it looks like that is from a news story, but you offer no source.

However, if Obama doesn't turn thing around, I don't think the media will blame him for not turning things around. They'll just continue blaming Bush.
 
Limbaugh is a shock jock, if you take him seriously you're only giving him what he wants -- popularity & thus money. No different than Coulter. It's like responding to a forum troll's thread. He's best ignored.
 
Limbaugh and Coulter aren't the scariest ones, those are the people that actually take what they say seriously and use it to form their political beliefs.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']However, if Obama doesn't turn thing around, I don't think the media will blame him for not turning things around. They'll just continue blaming Bush.[/QUOTE]
You didn't get the memo? Bush, long the standard bearer of governmental responsibility, will no longer be responsible for anything his policies or the policies of his government may have enacted effective yesterday around noon.

Besides, everyone knows Iraq, Medicare, Afghanistan, the decrepit state of V.A., the mad politicking at Justice, the bank failures, the lack of savings due to being encouraged to "go shopping", the remaining at large of those directly responsible for 9/11, the complete and utter screw up of the anthrax investigation, the initial round of the TARP bailouts, the backing out of various military treaties that were skewed far in our favor, torture, the selection of a personal attorney (and a shit one at that) as a Supreme Court Justice, trying to get a hospital-bound Justice dept. head to sign a clarification statement under duress and controlled substances, the suits brought against Oregon, Washington, and others that clearly violate federal powers, suspending Habeas, being unable to slow Iran's nuclear weapon procurement through any means at all, bringing democracy to the Middle East, assuaging the Israel-everyone else issue, unable to provide effective regulation of any industry in any meaningful way (how's everyone's peanut butter, tomatoes, jalapenos, spinach, what was it before that?), and, you know, everything else I haven't thought of in the last 3 minutes are all Obama's fault.

Thank god Obama has done so well with AIDS in Africa, or you might not have anything nice at all to say.

Seriously, I think given the gravity of the shit coming the guy's way, a 2 year honeymoon is probably going to be the way of things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sounds like the WSJ. They had a big page on the editorial filled with articles like the one he described. Sarah Palin did one, and it was very classy. Of course it probably was written by a ghostwriter, but still, I was surprised at how classy it was. Absolutely nothing negative at all.
 
Sorry, but I see more "core hypocrisy" in Obama's promise of "change we can believe in" than Limbaugh's statement of failure.

Anyone who thinks this new era of "change" represents anything more than a return to democrat cronyism after supplanting republican cronyism is either a complete dufus, or purposefully self-delusional.

I see no hypocrisy in Limbaugh's statement of hoping for the failure of leftist philosophy. Limbaugh doesn't want the economy to fail, just the socialist tactics which will inevitably be the plan to return it to growth.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I see no hypocrisy in Limbaugh's statement of hoping for the failure of leftist philosophy. Limbaugh doesn't want the economy to fail, just the socialist tactics which will inevitably be the plan to return it to growth.[/QUOTE]

That's like hoping for someone to get into a car wreck and die, but hope the car will end up without a scratch on it.

Gimmie a break.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Anyone who thinks this new era of "change" represents anything more than a return to democrat cronyism after supplanting republican cronyism is either a complete dufus, or purposefully self-delusional.[/QUOTE]
Convict the administration when they actually make a mistake. Before then, it's just tacky and petty.

Are you wrong? I don't know. It makes me think of that line from The Big Lebowski: "You aren't wrong Walter, you're just an asshole."
 
I also want any liberal/socialist policies to fail. But I don't want our country to fail.

I'm indifferent about whether Obama is considered a failure or success beyond those two things.
 
Why don't we want polices that work to work no matter whether we ideologically agree with them or not?

Look, I'm liberal as can be for the most part. But if a policy works, then do it.

This ain't console warz, or Blu-Ray versus HD DVD. It's our fucking livelihood and well being as a nation. We have political opinions, but I'd *like* to think that we all favor policies that work before preferring how they're implemented.

That's why I'm liberal. I've grown up knowing nothing but supply-side economics policies and deficit spending, and I'm smart enough to recognize the intellectual folly of those who blame the CRA for the current housing crisis. I know damn well what policies don't work.

So I support policies that work first, and what the policies are, second. The rest of you ideology first, nation second motherfuckers are some losers.
 
A dictatorship can work. It could fix much of these problems. It works just beautifully if you have the right dictator. No red tape and things get done in a snap.

But that's not what I want, even if it works and fixes problems. Do you?

I'm obviously making an extreme example. But my point is, if the solutions to problems that are implemented also alter what I like about America and what's always made it unique, then I'm not for those solutions. And I certainly don't believe there is only one possible solution to each problem. I just have a pretty good idea what policies this administration likely will lean to when it comes to problem solving, and I'm against a lot of it in theory.

That's why I'll hope some of those types of changes fail. Because to me, some change is worse than the problem.
 
Anyone that says they want ANY president to fail is a fool and is selfish.

You disagree with someone fine, but you have to be a real masochist to want the leader of the country to fall flat on his face. I don't like the current political system but it is what it is and we need it to work now, more than ever.
 
I agree. What works is much more important than ideology. As Obama said in his speech, it doesn't matter whether government is big or small, it matters whether or not it works.

I'm more than willing to swallow my beliefs if another approach is shown to work better.
 
I want Obama to realize a smaller government is the only way to get out of debt.

To do that, he will have to fail while enacting bigger government policies.

Even if he doesn't have this epiphany, I hope he succeeds at concluding our business with Iraq and realizes Afghanistan is a money pit before he get to committed to it.
 
Disagree that smaller government is the only way to get out of debt. More efficient government (scrapping ineffective programs, making ones that do work more efficient and cheaper etc.) coupled with raising upper income bracket tax rates and closing tax loop holes could possibly achieve the same thing.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Disagree that smaller government is the only way to get out of debt. More efficient government (scrapping ineffective programs, making ones that do work more efficient and cheaper etc.) coupled with raising upper income bracket tax rates and closing tax loop holes could possibly achieve the same thing.[/quote]

Our military is one of our biggest expenses and moneysinks.

It isn't efficient. It is largely unneeded. Everybody squeals if you suggest 4% of the world's population could spend less than the other 96% of the world's population combined on defense.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It would be an understatement to call your argument a slippery slope.

It's a fucking cliff covered in astro glide.[/QUOTE]

If you say so.

If we had a conservative president right now that wanted to "fix" the problems by cutting all types of social programs, would you be fine with it if it fixed the economy?
 
That's getting to a different definition of what makes a government "work."

For me it works when the economy is good, we're safe, crime rates are under control, we're respected around the world (at least among traditional allies) and the government is providing effective programming for its citizens without incurring huge debts etc. etc.

So I wouldn't think a government that just cut all social programs was working, just like I don't thing one that has a ton of programming but a broken economy and growing debt is working.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']If you say so.

If we had a conservative president right now that wanted to "fix" the problems by cutting all types of social programs, would you be fine with it if it fixed the economy?[/QUOTE]
It depends on how you define the situation. If money continues to concentrate at the top in a way that continues the seriously dicked money distribution in this country, then no. If you could do it in a way that pulled up everyone that actually wanted to come along (excluding parasitic shitheads), then hellz yeaz.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, I'll eat a pig's ass if you cook it right.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']T... the government is providing effective programming for its citizens ...[/quote]

I'm going to take this phrase out of context because of the way it struck me.

I believe the government has programmed its citizens into thinking a grand elaborate system is required.
 
If a Liberal would have said this Fox News and Limbaugh himself would have ripped that liberal apart calling him a anti American, unpatriotic and anything else you could imagine.

Myke hit it dead on on page 1. Its not the policy that matters its the results. Its scary how messed up some peoples views are. Idealism means nothing if your ideas fail.
 
I don't think an elaborate system is necessarily required. But I think a working government is one that can take care of it's citizens who cannot take care of themselves and can help disadvantage people have opportunities to have successful careers (education, vocational training etc. etc.). As well as providing standard services such as fire, police, military, etc. etc.

But I guess that may qualify as an elaborate system to libertarians.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
But I guess that may qualify as an elaborate system to libertarians.[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is. Government "taking care" of it's people, in and above protecting our individual rights as citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, goes against the founding principles of our government.

The government was never intended to be the arbiter and distributor of charity and favoritism. Now, because of those that share your philosophies, governments' purpose has been changed to exactly those two evils. And before you get started on your trite and unreasoned retort claiming I think charity is evil let me clarify:

Government charity is amoral when it forcibly confiscates individuals' wealth for that purpose. Charity is only moral when a free man is chooses to give.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Yes, it is. Government "taking care" of it's people, in and above protecting our individual rights as citizens from enemies foreign and domestic, goes against the founding principles of our government.

The government was never intended to be the arbiter and distributor of charity and favoritism. Now, because of those that share your philosophies, governments' purpose has been changed to exactly those two evils. And before you get started on your trite and unreasoned retort claiming I think charity is evil let me clarify:

Government charity is amoral when it forcibly confiscates individuals' wealth for that purpose. Charity is only moral when a free man is chooses to give.[/QUOTE]

bioshockintro12no1.jpg


A MAN...CHOOSES! A SLAVE...OBEYS! OBEY!!!!!!!!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
bioshockintro12no1.jpg


A MAN...CHOOSES! A SLAVE...OBEYS! OBEY!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Hehe exactly. Every time I hear people whining libertarian or far right philosophy Andrew Ryan and his mess of a society pop in my head. People need to just accept that government evolves and move on. Just like real evolution the evolution of government means it takes on many forms and though some of them are bad they end up discarded and we only keep the good. If welfare and public works programs were so horrible they would have been done way with years ago. But the facts are they are a blessing not just because society is judged by how we take care of our least fortunate and capable members but also because these programs save us money and head aches in the long run. People like to bitch their money is going to these programs via the government but its been shown time and time again that Americans are giving less and less and I believe regardless of if government took more or less this would not change. We are a greedy capitalist society now and if government doesn't take care of the sick no one will, as it stands the charities even with government chipping in are not receiving the funds they need. If no one is helped then we go back to having a large number of hungry unwashed masses. Get enough of those people together and you will find not just people you know suffering from hunger or other issues but also your possessions gone as break ins increase and family members dead from robbing people.

I know the right hates it but study after study shows in the end most of the lefts big spending policies save money over the long run.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Nothing like a democrat as president to push me back to the republican side...[/quote]

Worthwhile post is worthwhile.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']If welfare and public works programs were so horrible they would have been done way with years ago. But the facts are they are a blessing not just because society is judged by how we take care of our least fortunate and capable members but also because these programs save us money and head aches in the long run. People like to bitch their money is going to these programs via the government but its been shown time and time again that Americans are giving less and less and I believe regardless of if government took more or less this would not change. We are a greedy capitalist society now and if government doesn't take care of the sick no one will, as it stands the charities even with government chipping in are not receiving the funds they need. If no one is helped then we go back to having a large number of hungry unwashed masses.

I know the right hates it but study after study shows in the end most of the lefts big spending policies save money over the long run.[/quote]

Utter BS. The reason people don't give a larger chunk of their income to charity is because such a huge portion of it is being confiscated via taxation. When 40-50% of your income is siphoned off through state, federal, and local taxes, property taxes..car taxes..sales taxes, gasoline taxes + dozens of other hidden taxes, you feel you have "done enough" for the poor. Given how much money they take from you, you (justifiably) feel the government should be taking care of the less fortunate on your behalf and that you shouldn't need to do anything more. This mentality is very bad for the social structure of America in the long run. Families no longer take care of family members in need..They expect the government do it..to pay the unemployed not to work..to shuffle sick parents and siblings off to "free" government institutions where they receive substandard care. The glue that has held society together is being torn apart by government. Everything becomes impersonal and mechanical when the bureaucracy gets as big as it is today. People who genuinely need help don't get personal attention and their problems are merely sustained rather than solved. The system grows and grows..and we have an entire class of bureaucrats and politicians who have grown dependent on maintaining a general level of misery..because if that misery were ever to be truly alleviated, there would be no need for them to exist. This is a deadly cycle that feeds on itself. It helps very few at the cost of the many. Those in true need of charity would be far better off if it were given to them voluntarily..and most importantly, at the local level.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Hehe exactly. Every time I hear people whining libertarian or far right philosophy Andrew Ryan and his mess of a society pop in my head....[/quote]

Oh, gosh, I forgot that the backstory in a videogame is a valid argument against a self-reliant philosophy. How could I have thought otherwise when objectivist theory results in large robot death machines and cell supplanting sea slugs. I'm so thankful that videogames are your source for truth, it completes and confirms my mental image of you.

I know the right hates it but study after study shows in the end most of the lefts big spending policies save money over the long run.
Now you've piqued my interest. Please, please tell us more about these 'studies' that validate your theory that big government is only here to help us all. I'd be interested to play that game. Is it on the PS3 yet ?
 
Study or not, the last 30 years of my life, and looking at concepts of "big" and "small" government, show me that anyone thinking that there's any truth to Republican "small government/less spending" and Democrat "big government/more spending" policies is a delusional ninny.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Utter BS. The reason people don't give a larger chunk of their income to charity is because such a huge portion of it is being confiscated via taxation. When 40-50% of your income is siphoned off through state, federal, and local taxes, property taxes..car taxes..sales taxes, gasoline taxes + dozens of other hidden taxes, you feel you have "done enough" for the poor. Given how much money they take from you, you (justifiably) feel the government should be taking care of the less fortunate on your behalf and that you shouldn't need to do anything more. This mentality is very bad for the social structure of America in the long run. Families no longer take care of family members in need..They expect the government do it..to pay the unemployed not to work..to shuffle sick parents and siblings off to "free" government institutions where they receive substandard care. The glue that has held society together is being torn apart by government. Everything becomes impersonal and mechanical when the bureaucracy gets as big as it is today. People who genuinely need help don't get personal attention and their problems are merely sustained rather than solved. The system grows and grows..and we have an entire class of bureaucrats and politicians who have grown dependent on maintaining a general level of misery..because if that misery were ever to be truly alleviated, there would be no need for them to exist. This is a deadly cycle that feeds on itself. It helps very few at the cost of the many. Those in true need of charity would be far better off if it were given to them voluntarily..and most importantly, at the local level.[/QUOTE]

*rolls his eyes*
I guess thats why Millionaires today give less then in the past. Even people like Buffet and T Boone Pickens(a staunch right winger and the man that swift boated Kerry)have talked about how they don't mind giving more of their money now to taxes because they realize that more money is going to the rich who refuse to do the right thing and give to charity and reinvest in America. You can spout all the bull shit you want, but Americans for the first time in recent memory are making less money then they were before.....yet over all these years charity has received less and less. The idea that charity will receive more if we are taxed less is a stupid freaking joke. If we have $10,000's left after paying our rent and other bills/food and we are running to the stores putting our self in debt to buy an HDTV and a second luxury care then you can piss the fuck off with this whiny we are taxed too much so don't donate to charity bull shit. As I have said the reason we don't donate to charity is because we have become a greedy society.

bmulligan - Do your own damn research. Maybe if you spent less time whining about the left and listening to the right you would actually hear some facts. You know science isnt evil and every study isnt done by the left. Just read foreign affairs journal of essays every month. One of the few sources where the left and the right are both welcome to post their views. This is where I usually find out about this stuff and guess what....a lot of times it comes from those on the right too.....just the select few on the right that are happy to hold on to true conservative policy that works and abandon that which doesn't. People that are smart enough to realize in the past leaving charity to business and the people worked...but now is the stupidest of stupid ideas. BTW nice job ignoring every valid point anyone ever makes and just focusing on the stupid stuff like the Bioshock ref. Id recommend you take one of mykes classes but something tells me you would either leave in tears or leave screaming in the first 5 minutes unable to hear something that wasnt your own philosophy regardless of how much sense it makes.
 
[quote name='Capitalizt']Utter BS. The reason people don't give a larger chunk of their income to charity is because such a huge portion of it is being confiscated via taxation. When 40-50% of your income is siphoned off through state, federal, and local taxes, property taxes..car taxes..sales taxes, gasoline taxes + dozens of other hidden taxes, you feel you have "done enough" for the poor. [/QUOTE]

I think people would probably give more to charity if they paid less taxes in general. But it wouldn't be equal to what is paid in taxes or what the government spends on social programming.

People (myself included) are selfish and self interested. I donate some now, and would no doubt donate more if my taxes were reduced. But I can guarantee you that even I wouldn't donate 100% of what I'd saved in taxes--what with bills to pay, student loans to pay off etc.

If we're going to have social programs that help the poor that are large enough to make in wide scale difference nationwide, they'll have to be government programs paid for by taxes IMO. The key is to stop just throwing money at problems and start putting a lot of oversight and research into programs and finding out what programs work and what can be done to make them work better and cost less.
 
When you consider the attributional problems with government programs, it isn't that people are getting *too much*. It's that they're *getting* period. The political discourse is framed in terms of "deserving" and "undeserving," not in terms of largess.

With that in mind, I have a hard time believing that appropriate, genuinely needy populations would actually be donated to if people had more money to give. There's issues of (1) who would receive, (2) who would not, and (3) the problems if some services received much more than necessary to the detriment of others. Particularly if you don't want government telling you who you can and cannot devote to.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Brave words, Capitalizt. I enjoyed them and agree. But others here will have them in the oven soon.[/QUOTE]
Right, cause stark raving libertarianism is an endangered species on the interwebs. Don't forget that you're gonna need help to get the last nail in.

So Capitalizt, if I can summarize your position here.

1. Capitalism works because people are greedy, therefore the market will self-direct.
2. This same greed and self-interest will direct people to charitable giving.
3. They would gladly give it away if only we stopped taxing it away.

That's retarded. Plain and simple.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']
With that in mind, I have a hard time believing that appropriate, genuinely needy populations would actually be donated to if people had more money to give. There's issues of (1) who would receive, (2) who would not, and (3) the problems if some services received much more than necessary to the detriment of others. Particularly if you don't want government telling you who you can and cannot devote to.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. As an example, I've been donating a lot of clothes to Goodwill lately in preparing to move this summer. But I've not donated where I live (DC area), but rather have taken them back to the small town I grew up in WV when visiting my parents.

Why? There are very few jobs there period, while there are lots of help wanted/now hiring signs in the DC area for people willing to work retail, fast food etc.

But clearly people in the DC area still need help. Anyway, just a small anecdote that supports the problem of who gets donations in a totally private system and how it can be slanted for personal reasons to the detriment of certain areas/populations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though I lean strongly libertarian, I am not going to try and say that social programs would get funded the same through charitable giving if taxes were reduced.

There is obviously a happy medium that can be found, but currently we lean way too much the other direction.

I do agree though, that any time you are describing government and use the words "take care of people" then you aren't describing a government that I think was initially meant to be set up, nor a government I am particularly happy with. People historically prosper most when they are free to take care of themselves and each other. Setting up systems where everyone is FORCED to contribute to a system that is meant to "take care of" people is always destined to be corrupt, never stop growing, and ultimately destructive.
 
Lets rephrase "take care of people" to "help the disadvantage be able to take care of themselves." Is that better?

I agree the government shouldn't take care of people (the disabled and children aside of course)--you shouldn't be able to live off of government assistance while not working.

But the government should help provide opportunities for education and vocational training, job placement services, drug and alcohol treatment programs etc. etc. IMO. But it shouldn't just give handouts--again other than to the disabled and for children who simply can't take care of themselves.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Right, cause stark raving libertarianism is an endangered species on the interwebs. Don't forget that you're gonna need help to get the last nail in.

So Capitalizt, if I can summarize your position here.

1. Capitalism is good people people are greedy, therefore the market will self-direct.
2. This same greed and self-interest will direct people to charitable giving.
3. They would gladly give it away if only we stopped taxing it away.

That's retarded. Plain and simple.[/QUOTE]

It is funny that people have this childish fantasy that the markets can direct themselves and would magically direct themselves into a place that's beneficial to all including the poor vs making as much freaking money as possible. Capitalism and charity are not peanut butter and jelly they are peanut butter and relish.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']It is funny that people have this childish fantasy that the markets can direct themselves and would magically direct themselves into a place that's beneficial to all including the poor vs making as much freaking money as possible. Capitalism and charity are not peanut butter and jelly they are peanut butter and relish.[/QUOTE]

I'd love to gather as many of my rich friends together and get in a pissing contest with all of the idealistic hippy-college students wannabees on this board to see how philanthropic each group is.

Not only would my friends win on sheer tax payments alone, as they probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. But in addition, they have probably given 100x more time, money, and effort into charity causes than you have while you play videogames.

Perpetuating the myth that the wealthy, or rich, or over-privlidged, or whatever derogatory term you want to imply, are miserly and uncaring is an ignorant endeavor, or a purposefully disingenuous one.

For every 1 prick-headded scrooge I know, there are 10 who volunteer at a church to feed those poor, poor people. Or provide needy children with clothing, or new winter boots, or choose to adopt a family for christmas, or give $1000 checks to toys for tots, or scholarship funds, or decide to volunteer for the local food drive, blood drive, march of dimes, United way, Chlidren's hospital, or a myriad of other worthy causes.

I'll wager that 99% of the self-proclaimed 'compassionate liberals' on this board have done nothing for someone other than themselves except post on some gaming board how generous they'd will be with other people's money. Because for every 1 prick-headded jerk who thinks the world needs to be changed to force people into their own level of pseudo-self-sacrifice, there are 98 other idealistically inept imbeciles lining up behind him with a protest banner and slogan. Only 1 out of that hundred is actually humble enough to be doing something charitable instead of professing it.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Lets rephrase "take care of people" to "help the disadvantage be able to take care of themselves." Is that better?[/quote]
That's a little better, yes.

But the government should help provide opportunities for education and vocational training, job placement services, drug and alcohol treatment programs etc. etc. IMO. But it shouldn't just give handouts--again other than to the disabled and for children who simply can't take care of themselves.
Eh... While we are rephrasing stuff, let's rephrase "government should help provide" with "government should ensure nothing stands in the way of opportunities, including themselves."

Government (ours) was never meant to "provide" anything. Except some protection and infrastructure. They should ensure that nothing is in the way of achievement for anyone, but they certainly should not be helping people "catch up" with others, or provide "boosts" in most cases.

Once the government started getting involved in the "providing" business, they had to continue adding to it, indefinately, to keep it fair; which we are still dealing with today; and is probably the single most top-heavy part of government now. We have to keep adding to it today -and likely always will - until we wake up one day and have to admit to ourselves that our government provides so much that we live in a Socialist state.

[quote name='bmulligan']
I'll wager that 99% of the self-proclaimed 'compassionate liberals' on this board have done nothing for someone other than themselves except post on some gaming board how generous they'd will be with other people's money. Because for every 1 prick-headded jerk who thinks the world needs to be changed to force people into their own level of pseudo-self-sacrifice, there are 98 other idealistically inept imbeciles lining up behind him with a protest banner and slogan. Only 1 out of that hundred is actually humble enough to be doing something charitable instead of professing it.[/QUOTE]


You don't get it. They are "compasionate liberals" because they willing to participate in wealth redistribution overseen by government. That alone makes them compasionate, see?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='bmulligan']I'd love to gather as many of my rich friends together and get in a pissing contest with all of the idealistic hippy-college students wannabees on this board to see how philanthropic each group is.

Not only would my friends win on sheer tax payments alone, as they probably pay more in taxes than you make in a year. But in addition, they have probably given 100x more time, money, and effort into charity causes than you have while you play videogames.

Perpetuating the myth that the wealthy, or rich, or over-privlidged, or whatever derogatory term you want to imply, are miserly and uncaring is an ignorant endeavor, or a purposefully disingenuous one.

For every 1 prick-headded scrooge I know, there are 10 who volunteer at a church to feed those poor, poor people. Or provide needy children with clothing, or new winter boots, or choose to adopt a family for christmas, or give $1000 checks to toys for tots, or scholarship funds, or decide to volunteer for the local food drive, blood drive, march of dimes, United way, Chlidren's hospital, or a myriad of other worthy causes.

I'll wager that 99% of the self-proclaimed 'compassionate liberals' on this board have done nothing for someone other than themselves except post on some gaming board how generous they'd will be with other people's money. Because for every 1 prick-headded jerk who thinks the world needs to be changed to force people into their own level of pseudo-self-sacrifice, there are 98 other idealistically inept imbeciles lining up behind him with a protest banner and slogan. Only 1 out of that hundred is actually humble enough to be doing something charitable instead of professing it.[/QUOTE]

*rolls his eyes*
I love how every far righter always thinkings first off that we are all hippie college students. A lot of us are moderate here it just doesnt come across that way with dealing with people like you, brolly and thrust(who may not be far right but is boarder line insane when it comes to philosphy vs reality). I also love how you all insist you know so many people that are rich and give away sooooo much money. I live in freaking Rossford Ohio which is an EXTREAMLY well to do area. There are gated communities all around my apartments and multi million dollar homes on river real estate. When I volunteer at Food Gathers, a hospice or the YMCA I NEVER see these people. The people I see are a few church goers whose church is working with us or college students and every day Joe Schmoes.

Then there is my mother worked for the charity wing of a college and she time and time again griped about how hard it was to get the upper class to chip in vs getting the middle class. Then there are my rich aunts and uncles and those on my fiancees side of the family. People that give just enough to get a tax break but heaven forbid they give up buying that HDTV for their fucking bathroom. I mean seriously its not enough to have one in your bar room, living room, downstairs living room, game room and kitchen(not shitting you my Aunt really has all this). O and then I forgot about my fiancees friends from work. Her boss, the CEO of the company, she knows many of them from being a temp and has been invited to their house numerous times as well as handled paper work for them. Least freaking charitable people I know, only one of them that gives anything is the one that goes to church and only because his wife makes him(he has openly said he would rather be reinvesting it into stocks, I argue with this guy non stop at most work events).

Seriously where do you live that rich people give their money to charity? And what type of rich people and money are we talking about? My guess is again its either people that as you said are working with churches(which is always good, but at the same time sad that it takes church to get them to do anything)or Oprah givers which are people that give, but hardly give much when you look at their bottom line. I am sure this will get a response from you whining about ooo its not enough to give a mill you have to give half your net worth. Save it, its disgusting that people even think this way. Your right they do give more then me in my fiancee probally will in our life time. But what should matter is that we living off a measly $36k a year(and before this year it was more like $25k)still give and give and as we go up I will always make sure we are giving not till it hurts, but enough that we aint sitting high on the hog.

Its disgusting that we are even debating this.

/wall of text/rant
 
Bmull is arguing with himself about who would win in a fight, his imaginary friends or his strawmen.

Sad, really sad.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']*rolls his eyes*
... [/QUOTE]

Moderate is a meaningless term. It's like being sort-of pregnant. You can deny it and live your life in self-denial up until the time your gut starts distending and you're 10 cm dilated. And I love how anyone who isn't a socialist is proclaimed to be a Far Righty. I couldn't be any further from that right than you are in your so-called 'moderateness'.

Just because you personally don't SEE the aforementioned rich people in your favorite charity line doling out new socks doesn't mean they don't exist. Most people who donate or volunteer don't advertise it, flaunt it, or use it to guilt anyone else into doing the same. And they absolutely don't imply that charity must be mandated by law.

Rich people pay al the taxes in this country an are responsible for all the charitible programs you moderates demand yet you still hate them. They can't win no matter what they do. Therefore your hatred of them is irrational, you argument illogical.

Even the "middle classes" of which you speak who are charitable are paying their taxes to support the needy. And under the current mindset, those middle classes are considered rich by most. Soon, anyone who can afford a month's supply of toilet paper will be considered rich. Your problem is that it IS a possing contest to see ho can be the most charitable.

You don't care about choice, or indiidual freedom, or property. All you care about is that people be forced to contribute more, according to your standards of what is right and fair instead of individual choice. And you use the politics of envy to achieve your ends. And to that end, it may make you feel better about yourself to claim the moderate label, but you are no such thing.
 
bread's done
Back
Top