Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A truly compassionate person doesn't go bloviating about their assistance they have given. They just do it and shut the hell up about it. Tooting your own horn about giving is not compassionate in any sense of the word. It's done only to gloat and hope that everyone looks at you as some kind of upstanding citizen.
By enabling the gubmint to force people to pay for others, and then skipping around, singing, "I made you heeeelp, I made you heeeelp, you horrible, evil rethuglicans!!", is not compassion. I repeat myself on these threads many times: The libbies claim to care for the poor...and they think Republicans are evil, rich, greedy bastards who should be forced to give their money. But in the next breath, they claim that Republicans are Bible thumping, one toothed, hillbilly idiots living in trailer parks. Which one is it? And if we are all the latter, why aren't the libs interested in giving US their money? Because we are not the "label of the day", that's why. You don't get as much adoration from your co-workers and peers if you say you helped a person, you only get that if you say you helped a poor, downtrodden, black person, or illegal.
Compassion my ass. It's all about some b.s. self image they want to uphold...by making others do it for them while they take all the credit.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the canidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
That is exactly right. But, the libs aren't taking for themselves...NO! They are doing it to help....no, seriously, really, they are! Just listen to them, they'll tell you that themselves.
I wonder why the Obamas chose to live in upper crust Highland Park instead of the South Side Chicago neighborhoods where Michelle Obama grew up?
When liberals become affluent, why do they immediately abandon their neighborhoods? Why doesn't Jennifer Lopez, aka Jenny from the Block in the Bronx, still live in the Bronx?
Or how about the likes of Jay-Zee and Beyoncé, pretty much exploiting their own black people by selling them garbage music. Beyoncé is a talented singer, and yet even as a mom who thanks Jesus for her success, she degrades herself and other women by dressing and performing like a low-level stripper.
The rise and prevalence of hardcore pornography, while at the same time enacting political correctness in our speech, into the mainstream media is another example of liberal's often contradictory values. Liberals tend to support First Amendment freedom of speech for porn, yet completely admonish freedom of speech for words that are not considered politically correct. The liberal thought police have the power to destroy a person's life and career (such as Paula Deen) for using the "n" word.
Liberals feel compassion toward victims of criminals who use guns, and they want to restrict guns. Yet, they show no compassion toward exposing children to violent media and shooter killing simulations, or turning pre teen role models like Miley Cyrus into twerking strippers.
No, it's a false premise that liberals are compassionate for the less fortunate.
Since liberal ideology is geared to help the unfortunate, does it mean liberals themselves are more compassionate?
False compassion, of course. Liberals like to complain, but want others to pay for and work to "solve" the problems that they see with society. Thier job is to complain, just a helpless infant in a dirty diaper- the child knows there is a mess somewhere, but wants and adult to "fix it".
1. If liberals actually cared about the poor, they would start promoting policies that may make them rich, rather than perpetually poor.
2. If liberals actually cared about the homeless, they would take a homeless person into thier home.
3. If liberals actually cared about "CO2 emissions", they would all ride bikes and give up air conditioning and central heat.
4. If liberals actually cared about urban crime, they move into crime ridden neighborhoods to "set an example" for their fellow man.
5. If liberals actually cared about tax revenues for federal programs they want, they would simply voluntarily pay more taxes each year.
6. If liberals actually cared about illegals, they would sponser a mexican family and help them gain citizenship.
7. If liberals cared about "the hungry", they would volunteer and work at the local food pantry.
Liberals are simply the biggest hypocrites on the planet. Like an infant with a dirty diaper, they simply whine, do nothing, and hope to God that an adult can help them. Oh............. I forgot........... they don't believe in God. They hope that Lord Barry can help them.
PS- watch how liberals tip in restaurants. They are the cheapest SOBs on the planet and begrudge a hard working person a decent tip. It is embarrassing to have dinner with libs- I always "take over" their tip to spare them the humiliation.
Since liberal ideology is geared to help the unfortunate, does it mean liberals themselves are more compassionate?
Since when is liberal ideology more geared to help the unfortunate?
Conservative households give 30% more to charities than liberals, and a dollar of money in charities goes 3x further than government welfare spending in terms of the money actually getting to those in need. Conservatives aren't the ones who don't care about the poor.
"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227)"
Liberals earn more money on average than conservatives, but give less to those in need in terms of absolute dollars. How on earth is that an ideology that is 'geared to help the unfortunate'?
Leftists use the government to steal other people's money. They're criminals.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
