ABC’s John Stossel is well known for his libertarian views and for challenging liberal conventional wisdom. On Wednesday’s Good Morning America, Stossel was at it again as he debunked the widely held perception that liberals are more generous in their charitable contributions than conservatives. As part of a 20/20 special airing Wednesday night, Stossel interviewed Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks, who conducted a study which found that conservatives, while making slightly less money than liberals, actually contribute more:
John Stossel: "But it turns out that this idea that liberals give more is a myth. These are the twenty-five states where people give an above average percent of their income, twenty-four were red states in the last presidential election."
Arthur Brooks, Who Really Cares, author: "When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about thirty percent more per conservative-headed family than per liberal-headed family. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Stossel then highlighted Brooks’ theory as to how differences in political philosophy concerning the role of government in people’s lives has contributed to this difference in giving:
Stossel: "Conservatives are even eighteen percent more likely to donate blood. Brooks says it's because of the different role that conservatives and liberals see for government."
Brooks: "You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal are far less likely to give their money away."
As for which economic class is more giving, Stossel reported Brooks’ findings that while the rich contribute more in total dollars, the working poor actually donates a higher percentage of their income, while the middle class gives the least:
Stossel: "The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare. While the rich give more in overall dollars, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost thirty percent more of their income than the rich...A graph of giving in America resembles a ski jump. The people on each end give a higher percentage."
Brooks: "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor. The middle class give the least."
Wrapping up the segment, GMA anchor Diane Sawyer asked Stossel if he would be going after billionaires to get them to give more, despite the fact Brooks mentioned the rich as one of the most generous groups in the country, and sounded pleased with his response:
Sawyer: "And you're going to confront some billionaires, and see if you can milk them for more."
Stossel: "Yeah, they've got billions, why don't they give more? Are they cheap?"
Sawyer: "Good for you!"



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The Left prefers that Big Gov
November 29, 2006 - 11:57 ET by GalvanicThe Left prefers that Big Government be THE dispenser of charity. In that way, charity can control behavior through the carrot-and-stick approach, and they themselves don't have to worry about giving. If private citizens and groups provide the charity, they may "reward improper behavior."
...this really ought to finis
November 29, 2006 - 13:14 ET by TruthMonger...this really ought to finish off Wallis from yesterday - he was already off the radar last night...
So conservatives actually do more for the poor than libs. Oh what BS lib myth will be crushed next i wonder?
Church is also a big factor.
November 29, 2006 - 12:25 ET by aeroChurch is also a big factor. Liberals tend to be more secular, while conservatives tend to be more religious. Most religions encourage charity.
Conservatives are also more a
November 29, 2006 - 12:34 ET by sunandsteelConservatives are also more apt to take a "do it yourself" approach while liberals want everything handed to them.
This based on....?
November 29, 2006 - 12:48 ET by balboaThis based on....?
Which group is always talking
November 29, 2006 - 12:55 ET by sunandsteelWhich group is always talking about the need for more social services, redistribution of wealth, etc., and which group talks about financial responsibility?
Doesn't mean liberals want
November 29, 2006 - 12:56 ET by balboaDoesn't mean liberals want everything handed to them.
They seem to want a lot hande
November 29, 2006 - 12:59 ET by sunandsteelThey seem to want a lot handed to them though.
Yes, it does."The right
November 29, 2006 - 13:17 ET by richflanjYes, it does.
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." --Hubert Humphrey
My assessment is, liberals li
November 29, 2006 - 13:24 ET by BuffNBoneMy assessment is, liberals like to take my money to give it to whomever they would like to feel indebted to them.
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
This from a guy who himself a
November 29, 2006 - 14:32 ET by UnsaneThis from a guy who himself asked "Shouldn't the government be helping people?" (or something to tha effect) some time ago, to which I replied, the government is not a charity. The sad fact is that Leftists often confuse the federal government with United Way.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
This one of the pillars of yo
November 30, 2006 - 07:31 ET by PeskyDaneThis one of the pillars of your faith. So done with you on this issue.
Doesn't mean liberals want
November 30, 2006 - 07:48 ET by Jack BauerDoesn't mean liberals want everything handed to them.
Oh please.
Never met a "liberal" yet who wasn't born with a silver government begging bowl in his hand.
Proud member of the all-powerful and vast
militarist/industrialist/capitalist/zionist-bagelist complex
I'd just like to give thanks
November 30, 2006 - 07:56 ET by SportPoliticsI'd just like to give thanks to those who have posted in reply to bal's deception.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you.
OH, JULIUS TAP-DANCING CAESAR
November 30, 2006 - 07:20 ET by PeskyDaneOH, JULIUS TAP-DANCING CAESAR!! Based on 60 years of post-war whining. Based on every single deeply held creed by you people!! By that smarmy little comment, you have forfeited every conceivable ounce of credibility you once might have had.
You'll have both types give generously
November 29, 2006 - 12:35 ET by Carl KolchakMost churches will have a different array of people that give, and churches will be made up of Dems, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. These people will usually give and not let the left hand know what the right hand is doing, because they give not for recognition, but because they care about others. Now the Hollywood or business mogul types who also give generously usually like to hold a press conference so everyone can tell them how great they think they are and want Hollywood to hold a ticker tape parade for them so that the whole world will know how great they think they are.
"And what you give is what you get" 'Start'
I didn't mean to imply that n
November 29, 2006 - 12:47 ET by aeroI didn't mean to imply that no Dems or other non-Republicans go to church or give charitably. I was making a broad generalization about the philosophical leanings of liberals versus conservatives in the broadest sense. It is true that there are statistically more religious people on the right than on the left. Doesn't mean there aren't devout believers on the left--just that there are more on the right as a general rule.
Liberals go to Church alright
November 29, 2006 - 12:52 ET by mattmLiberals go to Church alright, the ones with a lesbian 'pastor' who reads from the Book of Gaia rather than the Bible and who preaches tolerance for everything except the actual teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.
LOL! Well, while I know exact
November 29, 2006 - 13:19 ET by aeroLOL! Well, while I know exactly the kind of congregation you're talking about, I wouldn't say that's an accurate portrayal of average liberals who go to church. For example, I've always been a little puzzled about why the majority of Hispanics vote Democrat when a large part of that demographic is strongly Catholic and very traditional. I'm no expert, but I'd say that conservatism would be a much better match with Catholicism than liberalism or progressivism. But there's an example of a very devout group that usually votes for Dems.
Dear Aero:
November 29, 2006 - 13:31 ET by tumblerYou'll get me started again. My powers of persuasion shortly before the Nov election was only the cause of every "conservative" in this blogsite giving me the ballistic treatment.
I was even accused of being a Liberal Troll, by folks who ought to know better. WHY?
For saying the plain truth: If we insist on demonizing the illegal alien, it only results in every hispanic voter with the slightest sense of pride--
Calling us the racist party. Nothing hurts a Mexican-American, or an hispanic like the gross indifference of Republicans to their voting bloc. When nobody on the Right treats Mexican illegals like men; they're treated like inferiors and pests. In this very blogsite, one guy called illegals "cockroaches". Now, he has freedom to think anything he pleases. I defend his right to that opinion. But I called it a racist remark and all hell broke loose at me.
Wonder then, why I warned us all-- we would drive all the hispanics into the arms of Nancy Plastic Pelosi and Teddy Kennedy? They consistently play the race card against our party. They love it when voters who are basically conservative fall for the race card.
Tumbler... People that break
November 29, 2006 - 13:42 ET by Clear thinkerTumbler... People that break our laws are cockroaches!
Those who come here legally are welcome. Conservatives did not fall for the race card because race had nothing to do with it.
I understand thinker-ino
November 29, 2006 - 13:50 ET by tumblerYeah; I hear ya, clear;
Voters are who I'm talking about. If you're so smart, tell Aero about your brilliant deduction. Tell those conservative voters we could've retained for our party --they went to the Leftists. American voters.
You'll never see the world clearly because nobody can teach you anything. You have all the answers. NOT.
Ok, Mr. Supposed Expert, enli
November 29, 2006 - 13:53 ET by Clear thinkerOk, Mr. Supposed Expert, enlighten me. How did conservatives fall for the race card?
already explained, clear
November 29, 2006 - 14:05 ET by tumblerDon't play dumb. You and I know the Republican party isn't all about race. But the perception lives on. Mainly because the Left panders to people of color. I hate pandering. I'm an hispanic and a conservative, thru-& thru. And not a racist.
Yet I know how Mexican-American VOTERS relate to the illegal problem. As a serious, but not crucial problem. It can be worked on, if people of good will try. They know who the Pro-Life party is, it isn't the Democrats. They know who the strong military party is, --again NOT Democrats. The family values, Christian party-- NOT Democrats. Then why do they vote for mugs like the Democrats?
Because they see us, REPUBLICANS, as the ones who hate Mexicans. They see hatred for ALL hispanics, from OUR SIDE and even if it costs us elections! Yes, these people are in favor of legal immigration, same as us. But NOT in favor of a fence; or of demonizing people of color! YOU demonize a Mexican saying he's a criminal, and a bandit, and a diseased insect. That's simple HATE SPEECH. When will you get it through your skull? You do NOT think clearly.
tumbler...Are you nuts or som
November 29, 2006 - 14:23 ET by Clear thinkertumbler...
Are you nuts or something? You started out tring to make an argument (not a very good one) then you immediately accuse me of "YOU demonize a Mexican saying he's a criminal, and a bandit, and a diseased insect. That's simple HATE SPEECH"
Please show me where in my post I said anything that resembles what you wrote.
As far as the race card goes.... The only reason why anyone would consider a conservative as someone that hates mexicans is because the Dems lie about it and then get the liberal MSM to carry the water for them. Conservatives on the whole are a hell of a lot more caring about others than libs, Stossel made this point. Which is something I've known my whole life.
Once again, anyone of any color that breaks our laws is a cockroach!
I think I understand Tumbler'
November 29, 2006 - 14:07 ET by aeroI think I understand Tumbler's point. Tumbler is responding to my puzzlement about why Hispanics, though largely Catholic traditionalists (read: essentially conservative at heart), vote for Democrats. Their beliefs line up better with conservatism, but they vote Democrat because they think they're being insulted or marginalized by Republicans. They think Democrats are going to protect Hispanics in general (legal or illegal) better than Republicans. They ignore the fact that their core beliefs are better served by voting for Republicans because many of them identify with illegals. I think this is shortsighted and silly of them, but I can see Tumbler's point about it. We shouldn't pander to those breaking our laws, but calling them cockroaches doesn't help to win the hearts and minds of those who wrongly identify with them.
clear isn't interested
November 29, 2006 - 14:19 ET by tumblerClear isn't interested in hispanic voters' hearts and minds. He is like others who've posted here; alarmed. One guy, iveseenitall, said the illegals will "destroy our country!" Another said we ought to station the marines at our southern border and KILL the ones who came across, AFTER building a fence. Some nutball said (he's being a cmedian,) to fly em all into Chile! and dump them out in the desert to walk back hundreds of miles to civilization!
These guys lost the minds God gave them, because ALARM has made them fanatics. And, when I posed the problem of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and loving our neighbor; they grew even more bull-headed. HEARTS & MINDS? I'm not making this up!
Well, truthfully, I'm alarmed
November 29, 2006 - 14:30 ET by aeroWell, truthfully, I'm alarmed about the illegal immigration problem, too. I live in Texas, and the effects of illegal immigration here are appalling. But I also know that there are many wonderful Hispanic people who came here legally or were born here who deserve respect and whose votes really should go to Republicans because we represent their beliefs better than Dems do. Some legal immigrants hate illegals very much themselves because they went to all the trouble to get citizenship legally, and illegals are destroying their American dream. I would resent the heck out of people who think they can cut to the front of the line or just skip the line entirely and find just as much success in America as the ones who do it legally.
But, for better or for worse, many legal Hispanics identify with and sympathize with illegals. Hurling racial epithets at illegals does insult and upset legal Hispanic voters, and drives them to vote Democrat.
Boy, we're way off topic here...
aero...I have seen only one r
November 29, 2006 - 14:43 ET by Clear thinkeraero...
I have seen only one racial epithet on this forum in the year I have been a member. Tumbler is trying to stir up something in this forum that doesn't exist.
clear thinking
November 29, 2006 - 14:56 ET by tumblerI didn't stir up anything. And I never accused anybody of "racial epithets"-- I said hate speech; which is applicable if you say a man can be a cockroach. Naturally, you don't "stir up" anything, using those epithest. You can also accuse me of hating white Americans, without suffering any consequences. It happens to be false; but it's very Liberal of you.
Liberals do those things. They call you a "divider" and you want to "starve children" and you are about to "destroy Social Security for Geezers" They make unfounded charges at us; and we accept them. Now you're saying something evil and false. Are you a Liberal? Am I supposed to accept it, because you're an American? Well, sorry. I'm also an American. You are fond of hate speech against the poor. Against your neighbor.
tumbler...Arguing with you is
November 29, 2006 - 15:07 ET by Clear thinkertumbler...
Arguing with you is like arguing with a 2 year old. Ooooops, I have a granddaughter (half hispanic) that has better debating skills. Sorry hon!
tumbler...Arguing with you is
November 29, 2006 - 15:07 ET by Clear thinkertumbler...
Arguing with you is like arguing with a 2 year old. Ooooops, I have a granddaughter (half hispanic) that has better debating skills. Sorry hon!
tumbler...What kind of drugs
November 29, 2006 - 14:38 ET by Clear thinkertumbler...
What kind of drugs are you on???
You wrote : "Clear isn't interested in hispanic voters' hearts and minds." How did you come up with this gem from what I wrote?
"And, when I posed the
November 29, 2006 - 17:46 ET by ckc1227"And, when I posed the problem of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and loving our neighbor; they grew even more bull-headed. HEARTS & MINDS? I'm not making this up"
Sigh, once again, even Heaven has rules for entry. God loves all his children, but you don't get in if you don't follow the rules. Now, if it's good enough for the dude upstairs, it's good enough for me.
"Clear isn't interested in hispanic voters' hearts and minds."
No, he's interested in what's best for this country, which is what politicians should be interested in, not voting blocks.
Lastly, even legal Hispanics want something done about illegal immigration, and amnesty isn't what they want.
aero....Sometimes it's very h
November 29, 2006 - 14:26 ET by Clear thinkeraero....
Sometimes it's very hard to figure out what tumbler means. His thinking get's clouded by his hatred of white Americans.
Clear thinker, I didn't actua
November 29, 2006 - 14:14 ET by aeroClear thinker, I didn't actually address your question about conservatives falling for the race card.
Tumbler wasn't saying that conservatives in general fell for any race card. (S)he meant that Hispanics who are really conservative at heart fall for the race card played by Dems and vote Dem because they buy the idea that Republicans are evil racists.
Same reason so many African-American voters keep voting Dem, even though the Dems have not fulfilled any of the promises they've made to black voters over the past 4-5 decades.
aero...Your last sentence com
November 29, 2006 - 14:33 ET by Clear thinkeraero...
Your last sentence comes the closest to reality. The Dems have pandered and lied to black voters for years. What makes it difficult to show this reality is our own media. The majority of our media is liberal in it's bias, and the majority of Americans still get their news from this media. This is how conservatives come off looking bad. It's perception but nowhere near reality!
Agreed. Analysts keep saying
November 29, 2006 - 14:45 ET by aeroAgreed. Analysts keep saying that the power of the MSM is broken--that new media is making it harder for them to shape public opinion because all of us have access to other points of view and avenues of information now. But I still see the MSM as being frighteningly powerful in its ability to influence what the general public thinks and feels. Witness the media's impact on this last election--they succeeded in pounding enough "macaca"-type incidents and ignoring enough cash-in-the-freezer type incidents to shift the balance of power in Congress. I really do think the media pulled off this election for Dems, because the Dems certainly didn't win it with ideas! They didn't present any, so how could they?
aero...TWO THUMBS WAY UP!
November 29, 2006 - 14:52 ET by Clear thinkeraero...
TWO THUMBS WAY UP!
I often divide the political
November 29, 2006 - 14:41 ET by UnsaneI often divide the political views into two spheres: social, and fiscal/economic. I suspect that though (in general) Hispanics are social conservatives, they are fiscal liberals. Although tumbler has a point that the Dems play the race card and that also is unfortunately effective for some.
Take a look at the runoff for one of San Antonio's Congressional districts. Both candidates are Hispanic, the majority of voters there will be Hispanic, but when the date of the runoff was announced for 12 Dec, LULAC threw a fit, crying that since this was an important day on the Catholic calendar, it was clearly an attempt to suppress the Latino vote. One, if that were true, there won't be a lot of voters to begin with, due to the demographics of this city alone, two BOTH candidates are Hispanic, so it makes even less sense to do, and three, in TX you can vote EARLY if you don't want to go to the polls on 12 Dec!!! Talk about playing the race card both unnecessarily and from the bottom of the deck...
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Ah, I was conveniently forget
November 29, 2006 - 14:53 ET by aeroAh, I was conveniently forgetting the fiscal/economic part of the equation. You are of course right. Even without the race card, immigration, and social/religious conservatism, there are many hispanics who would still choose to vote Democrat because they support government programs that they perceive to be helpful to their communities.
aero, let me say:
November 29, 2006 - 15:11 ET by tumblerTo your: "there are many hispanics who would still choose to vote Democrat because they support government programs that they perceive to be helpful to their communities."
No doubt. But I vote Republican across the board; and I'm a believer in limiting government. Many hispanics do the same.
In my opinion, just having the PRO LIFE plank of the party is enough to make any hispanic perfectly happy with Republican candidates. It's an overwhelming advantage for us; at least as much as any fiscal preference. Adding tax-reform, it ought to attract a VERY large segment of the hispanic voting bloc; as it did here in Calif. Taxes helped Schwarzenegger win here, and our hispanic vote went overwhelmingly in his favor, against Mexican-American candidates on the Democrat ticket! DESPITE his not favoring Pro-Life, or defense of marriage vs. gay marriagers.
Mexicans normally would rather die than vote for Gay Marriage advocates like the Terminator. But they did, to cut California taxes.
Unsane...Very good points. Tu
November 29, 2006 - 14:58 ET by Clear thinkerUnsane...
Very good points. Tumbler was trying to say that conservatives fell for the race card, and I strongly disagreed. He wrote "They love it when voters who are basically conservative fall for the race card."
I know darn well that the Dems use, abuse, and definately fall for the race card, not conservatives.
Charity
November 29, 2006 - 15:18 ET by pbanks7I do taxes. Churchgoers were far more likely to give $500 or more to charity. Often, the amount given to church was more than others' entire charitable giving.
Ignorance is bliss. It's easier to repeat a mindless slogan than to do some actual research.
areo - absolutely - religion
November 29, 2006 - 18:00 ET by ding7777areo - absolutely - religion is the whole point. From his book
But the talking heads will no doubt ignore this finding
I am truly surprised that AB
November 29, 2006 - 12:36 ET by Dave RI am truly surprised that ABC hasn't canned Stossel yet, as he is by far the brightest person employed by that hideous network.
LOL! I've wondered that mysel
November 29, 2006 - 12:49 ET by aeroLOL! I've wondered that myself. I guess he brings in the ratings for them, otherwise you can be sure he'd be out of there in a heartbeat. I love Stossel's work. I go to Townhall.com to read his articles all the time.
dave r stossel
November 29, 2006 - 13:07 ET by misterbilldave r stossel Read his:
"Myths, Lies, And Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel — Why Everything You Know Is Wrong,"
Should be a must read for most Americans. He gets in to the GW scenario. Quite enjoyable.
Let's see now, Liberals make
November 29, 2006 - 12:50 ET by mattmLet's see now, Liberals make slightly more than conservatives - There goes that "rich Republican" stereotype - eh Libbies???? C'mon, there has to be a point when you'll admit you've been wrong all this time, isn't there????
Also, Conservatives give more than Liberals - That blows the "mean-spirited conservative" cliche all to flinders, doesn't it?
You wonder why Libs want higher taxes? Easy, they can afford it and they know YOU can't. They got theirs and they'll be damned if they'll allow just anyone into their rich elitist club; they'll be damned anyway.
Facts destroy Liberalism!
Facts from a professor from
November 29, 2006 - 12:55 ET by balboaFacts from a professor from Syracuse's study. Who knows how accurate that info is? I'd like to hear more about this study. He may be right, but I'm not going to accept it as gospel just because.
...let's all give balboa a ha
November 29, 2006 - 13:20 ET by TruthMonger...let's all give balboa a hand for trying people! Whoo-hoo!
No? But you'll accept the &
November 29, 2006 - 13:48 ET by mattmNo? But you'll accept the "rich republican" cliche without a blink...
Did I? Where? Can you point
November 29, 2006 - 13:56 ET by balboaDid I? Where? Can you point that out for me?
Are you denying that you buy
November 29, 2006 - 14:25 ET by mattmAre you denying that you buy into the "mean-spirited, rich republican" stereotype so pervasive in the rhetoric of Liberalism?
If so, I'll grant you that, but you can't deny that it is a Liberal stereotype which is demonstrably FALSE and therefore demolishes one of the pillars of Liberal orthodoxy. i.e. that republicans are greedy rich elitists who don't care about the poor.
The facts (oooh, there goes that word again) demonstrate that maybe it's the Libs who don't care about the poor - that maybe the Libs use this anti-conservative stereotype to keep the poor perpetually voting democrat and perpetually poor, and voting democrat, and poor....it's a cycle....
You can't side-step that with one of your clever little retorts. Or maybe you can...
please, mattm & clear
November 29, 2006 - 14:40 ET by tumblerMatt: WHO is denying that he buys what? Talkin to me?
Clear-- YOU is the collective Republican "base" everybody loves to say Bush sold out; because he hasn't fallen into the same hate-speech knee-jerk crap-slinging bull enough to stop the illegals.
YOU means whoever hates or advocates hatred. Whoever makes it seem he/she is TOO GOOD to tolerate another country's poor in his neighborhood. Unless that poor man is documented, of course. That is the knee-jerk PRETEXT used by intolerant Americans. Only hate when it's illegal! Lol! Only cockroaches if they haven't come legally (Oh sure.)
You're so silly. And I'm not defending Democrats for their illegitimate claims to the hispanic vote. Far from that; I'm lamenting it. They benefit from our Republican "base" indulging itself in hate-speech. Oh, well; maybe in 2008, we'll win without the hispanic voters. I HOPE.
Again, application of law = h
November 29, 2006 - 14:44 ET by UnsaneAgain, application of law = hatred and racism.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I don't know how a discussion
November 29, 2006 - 15:06 ET by mattmI don't know how a discussion of the false stereotype of the "rich republican" in regards to the topic of charitable giving devolved into a discussion of illegal immigration.
I'm pro-immigration. I'm just against amnesty and I'm for border security.
I'm really not sure what Bush's position is on it. But there does seem to be another stereotype being created by the Left which tries to portray the immigration issue as a racial issue and make conservatives out to be xenophobic bigots. This is a typical Leftist tactic - demonize rather than debate. This is really all I was trying to point out....
BTW - I was responding to Balboa's response to my post.
"Clear-- YOU is the co
November 29, 2006 - 17:58 ET by ckc1227"Clear-- YOU is the collective Republican "base" everybody loves to say Bush sold out; because he hasn't fallen into the same hate-speech knee-jerk crap-slinging bull enough to stop the illegals."
Ahhh, I get it now, wanting our borders secured from illegal aliens is HATE speech, lol. Does wanting the removal of crack dealers from my town also qualify as hate speech? Afterall, these are poor individuals just trying to feed their families, so we should cut them some slack. I know, we can just make this the defense de jour whenever a poor person is arrested. He/she can simply claim "I'm poor and uneducated, your Honor", which results in an immediate dismissal of all charges.
If anyone is silly sir, it is you.
earth to ckc, come in
November 30, 2006 - 01:45 ET by tumblerDear ckc12.
How neatly you disparage what I say: "I get it now, wanting our borders secured from illegal aliens is HATE speech, lol."
--No, Lol.
I meant that when Bush didn't roll over for your hate speech, you assumed he's against having secure borders. You do contest this in terms of hatred for illegal entrants, don't deny it. We all have hopes of securing the border against illegal entry. You aren't the Lone Ranger. But all of us don't hate our neighbor. Mainly it's many racists among us who bitch a lot by hateful rhetoric. Not even for love of the law, or our country. Just because most illegals speak a different language and eat beans. (It's all a racist needs to hate somebody.)
This might not apply to you. It doesn't apply to me, or George W. Bush. It applies somewhat to people who want to post marines at our border, shooting to kill. Or erecting a boondoggle fence. Fences keep out cattle, ckc. Illegals are human beings. When you dislike the foreigner so much, and use hate speech against him, you're open to suspicions of racism. It makes LAW a secondary consideration; after racist emotion.
Illegals are human beings,
November 30, 2006 - 03:19 ET by Conservative VoiceIllegals are human beings, and unlike cattle they have a soul which knows right from wrong and knows how to steal, cheat, and rob. Should we forgo any police action, because after all even the worst criminal is a human being?
Are you denying that you bu
November 29, 2006 - 16:09 ET by balboaAre you denying that you buy into the "mean-spirited, rich republican" stereotype so pervasive in the rhetoric of Liberalism?
I think there ARE mean-spirited, rich republicans. I don't think that is the makeup of the whole party.
"...makeup of the whole
November 29, 2006 - 17:05 ET by mattm"...makeup of the whole party."
It's not even enough of a characteristic to even come close to justifying the stereotype. In fact, it appears from this story that the "mean-spirited rich" label might more fittingly apply to democrats.
Again, according to a study
November 29, 2006 - 17:16 ET by balboaAgain, according to a study from some guy from Syracuse. It is enough of a characteristic to some people, not me, not you, but some. I tend to go more on what republicans and democrats I come into contact with.
Balboa...can we count on you to apply this standard
November 29, 2006 - 19:30 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasBalboa...can you be counted on each and everytime time on each and every topic of discussion that you will hold yourself to this standard of investigation before acceptance of declarations or is this going to be an occassion of convenience?
;)
I am a member of LSCA (Lazy Spell Checkers Anonymous).
I'll do it as often as you do
November 29, 2006 - 21:15 ET by balboaI'll do it as often as you do. :)
This revelation of conservat
November 30, 2006 - 00:07 ET by SvenThis revelation of conservatives being more generous when it comes to charitable giving than libs, reminds me of something from a few years back.
Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (sp), after constantly hearing the cries of libs that not enough taxes were being collected to fund social programs, instituted a program by which individuals could write the state a check to go towards taxes. I believe several months after the program was put in place, they collected something like $200 dollars!
You've thought the libs would be breaking their checkbooks open and contributing to the cause they say they care so deeply about. Oh wait, I forgot, they're generous, as long as it's with other people's money!
LOL! That's priceless!!!
November 30, 2006 - 01:06 ET by aeroLOL! That's priceless!!!
aero,This said volumes about
November 30, 2006 - 01:21 ET by Svenaero,
This said volumes about the libs and their phony concern about the less fortunate among us.
But I agree...it was "priceless"!
I watched part of the segment
November 30, 2006 - 13:00 ET by MikeBI watched part of the segment last night, and got to thinking that Stossel needs to go back and watch his own special on Greed. He was talking about how much the super rich "should" give. Who determines the "should"? It's their money, they can do with it as they wish. If they want to give it all away, fine, if they give none of it away, that is also fine.
In Greed, Stossel was talking about the 1 billion Ted Turner was giving to the UN, and pointed out that Turner would have helped more people if he had taken that billion dollars and opened up a business and/or factory, hired the people he wanted to help, and let them earn a living.
Don't get me wrong, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation does some excellent work. I have no problem with that. But for Stossel to pontificate that the super rich don't give "enough" makes me think he is either drifting away from his libertarian philosophy, or he is pandering to the communist wing of the democrat party.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
stossel
November 30, 2006 - 18:22 ET by Conservative VoiceMikeB I also saw last night show. He did make that point, that the uber rich do provide jobs, though it wasn't very loud, and he was a bit misleading. A person maybe worth billions, but it isn't liquid, so donating a billion dollars is pretty significant because its out of their liquid assets.