CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:50
Arguments:35
Total Votes:64
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (34)

Debate Creator

judas(295) pic



Why are liberals such heartless bastards?

Liberals show great compassion when spending other peoples money, I think that can't be disputed. But why are they such heartless bastards when it comes to speading thier own money?

Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times,(one of the most liberal newspapers in the U.S.) Nicholas Kristof, writes "Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates. "

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 new study produced by the Chronicle of Philanthropy shows that 14 out of the top 20 states in charitable giving are red, or Republican states, while 12 of the bottom 15 are blue, or Democrat states.

 “The eight states that ranked highest in The Chronicle's analysis voted for John McCain in the last presidential contest while the seven lowest-ranking states supported Barack Obama.” writes the Chronicle.

The study also found that the more religious states- which also happen to be more Republican- tend to give more than the less religious states

So what do you think? Why are liberals so cold hearted and conservatives so kind and generous?


http://i45.tinypic.com/2ywzn6w.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2920994/posts

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/natl/generosity_index/2006.html

 

Add New Argument
4 points

Are liberals rich elitists or broke free-loaders? Make up your mind... and look up cognitive dissonance while you're at it.

judas(295) Disputed
2 points

Can you show any instance of "cognitive dissonance" in the above description or is your argument as empty-hearted as your politics?

Where did I say, or even merely imply that liberals are either elitist or free-loaders? Is there anything at all behind your attack or are you all shit talking?

1 point

I know you probably have to justify your silly politics but maybe doing so with facts would be better than empty, factually incorrect, shit talking.

Anything to say about charitable contributions at all?

judas(295) Disputed
2 points

So, everyone can see your post was just a bunch of empty lies from another greedy liberal. Don't you want to defend yourself? You okay with sounding like a whiny coward?

I've shown how kind and generous conservative Christians are compared to their greedy, penny pinching, liberal counterparts.

Don't you have any evidence or argument to the contrary?

Are we all agreed then?

ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

Are liberals rich elitists or broke free-loaders? Make up your mind... and look up cognitive dissonance while you're at it.

What an interesting statement... so Liberals can only be one type of person?

I do find it interesting how pseudo-intellectuals have been throwing around cognitive dissonance lately in political discussion. I suppose you've studied at lot on Psychology in order to be throwing that term at someone who disagrees with your philosophy.

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
1 point

What an interesting statement... so Liberals can only be one type of person?

Of course not. So you meant to agree that this particular idea would be conflicting with itself. Are you saying this is not what this particular debate was saying? Very well, then say that.

I do find it interesting how pseudo-intellectuals have been throwing around cognitive dissonance lately in political discussion. I suppose you've studied at lot on Psychology in order to be throwing that term at someone who disagrees with your philosophy.

There's actual intellectual support for this as well. And whether or not one is a psychologist or is a pseudo-intellectual has no bearing on the merit of the statement. See reply to Jake for more.

JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

Take your pick there's not much in the middle. (; Cognitive dissonance is the beautiful irony of liberalism. The 'broke' is what the elitists are always using to sell their arguments. So the conflict is already there.

Are you going to respond to this?? You seem to be ignoring me lately.

judas(295) Disputed
1 point

So you can't directly quote anything I wrote as displaying "cognitive dissonance" either? Can you show how I said or somehow implied that liberals are elitists or free loaders?

No I didn't think so...

iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
0 points

Nah, you always seem to be the second to respond, and I'm usually bored of the argument after the first guy.

For using the broke (to sell an argument) to be two conflicting thoughts working simultaneously, you'd have to show where elitists also use the broke to sell the opposite argument or something similar to the opposite argument.

Now, there may be instances of this phenomenon... um, liberals tend to be more anti-animal testing yet want more money spent on disease treatment and prevention which may often require animal testing? That works maybe.

There's got to be more though... Oh, the biggest and most recent ones. Against war and we spend too much on military but supporting the war in Afghanistan. Being for helping every nation's impoverished and exploited, being against the Iraq war even when it was (later) sold as just such an endeavor... granted that last comes more from a disbelief that that was the intent and a belief that the effort will prove in vain even if it were the intent.

The problem is from what I can see, liberal conflicting thoughts seem to be more complex, so much so that it's can be other things, other factors involved making these thoughts not necessarily conflicting...

But sure, there's dumb fucking liberals with cognitive dissonance aplenty, I happen to think in most cases their still generally correct even if correct for the wrong reasons.

It's not the same though, whether this debate outwardly said "liberals are elitists and oh yeah broke freeloaders too" in a single sentence, you cannot deny that that very thought is a very prevalent thing, and very mainstream in the very large and the currently in-control-of-the-GOP fringes, and this particular argument could easily be construed as such an argument.

Let's explore some others. Obama is an apologist knowing he's increased troops in Afghanistan and gave the order that killed Osama and (though they likely don't know this) has actually killed more high-level terrorists in 3.5 years than Bush in his entire two terms... still, he's an apologist.

Obama's policies are harmful to the economy and job rates. This though the stimulus was a bi-partisan effort actually passed before he was president, he actually wanted less of it to banks and more of it to production (like the GM portion), jobless rates are going down (albeit slower than anyone wants, still down though, not up), and GDP has increased both in terms of size, and when debt is compared as a percent of it (around 32%). The deficit, the deficit, the deficit. Particularly "This president has increased the deficit more than any in history" Not true by any measure of debt, and though the debt has increased, it's (again) a lower percent of GDP than it has been in about a decade and the rate of the debt increase has slowed.

There are many, many more. Immigration. This liberal administration has actually deported more immigrants than the previous conservative one. Spending on "Bureaucratic" jobs. There are actually less government jobs now than there were four years ago (which I think is ass backwards in a down economy, government should be putting people to work wherever it can). The list goes on.

These conflicting simultaneous ideas are not complex. They are right on the surface over a huge spectrum of the right, the majority of the right I'd say.

Liberals JUST pay lip service..., they don't practice what they preach ;)

2 points

Here are a couple of arguments, from a liberal:

1) According to the first article: According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.

Churches do a lot of charity work, and that certainly should be counted, but a lot of that money goes to the churches infrastructure and not to help the needy, so I don't think that counts as much as giving to the March of Dimes or some other organization that is strictly to help those that need it.

2) Also according to the first article: Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.

So it seems like it isn't so much conservatives that are generous, but religious people, many of whom also happen to be conservative.

3) The numbers are taken from tax returns, so another possible conclusion is that conservatives lie on their taxes more. I'm not saying that that's the case, I'm just pointing it out as a possible interpretation of the numbers.

However, in all honesty, I think there is probably some truth behind the numbers. Going to church every week does serve as a reminder to do good things, and churches themselves do do good work with the money they receive. I do think this should serve as a wake-up call to us liberals to re-examine our values and to put our money where are mouths are.

Also, before you religious people get too smug about all of this:

Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. (Also from the first article.)

1 point

Well said. 100% agree. Conservatives don't give more to charity, religious people do.

Religious people give more to charity because their religions demand it. The practice of sacrificing valuables to god has been going on for thousands of years and today sacrificing your best lamb has turned into getting out your checkbook.

Lev 27:30 - 'A tithe of everything from the land, whether grain from the soil or fruit from the trees, belongs to the LORD; it is holy to the LORD.' (tithe means 10%)

Also, 2000 years ago there was a guy named Jesus that was kind and said good things about charity like,

Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

...and today a lot of people still follow his teachings of charity.

So, basically liberals have some stiff competition when it comes to charity because their opposition believes that god demands 10% of their income.

Supporting Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe (en.wikipedia.org)
2 points

I find this quite interesting when it comes to the philosophy of liberals and conservatives. Would it be that Liberals are greedy yet feel bad for the poor? Maybe since they, themselves, are greedy they don't understand how others can be charitable.

Other studies from a Psychologist who created "test your morals" found that Liberals found it harder to understand the positions of Conservatives than vice-versa. Maybe Liberals don't understand, truly, what it's like to be charitable. Instead, they feel that coercion is the only way to help the needy.

Very interesting studies. I thank you for this.

1 point

i am not sure if I get what you are trying to say. I believe that Jesus was a liberal though. i mean free healthcare, and feeding the poor, that is liberal to me. No offense brah. Besides, liberals have better sex, and that is pretty damn compassionate. Bad Ismaila, bad! ;)

1 point

You have some nerve calling other people heartless bastards when you are a heartless bastard yourself. Fuck you.

Liberals have a heart. Liberals care about the poor and Liberals are anti-war.

0 points

It is utterly amazing how stupid some people can be, let me guess you support flat sales taxes as well ?

-3 points
judas(295) Clarified
0 points

Downvote all you want. Do you know what a bunch of downvotes and no arguments means? It means I'm right.

C'mon, no one wants to hit that little "dispute" button? It's right there...

modorichie(152) Disputed
1 point

Because SOME republicans donate a lot to religious establishments in an effort to remove seperation of church and state and lean towards a theocracy, it's not so much philanthropy but more a kin to donating to a superpac. liberals tend to donate more towards social Issues. although there are crossovers on both sides. MANY Republicans donate to some very good causes but they tend to be more moderate and pragmatic.