Seabird

Wow,that took a portion of your day.
Why did you make it political?

Richard94611

There are more ways of giving than handing over cash. The people you have listed give immense amounts of their time to promoting charitable and public service organizations, drives and events. Your description limiting their giving to money does not paint the whole picture.

Richard94611

Let's not forget that Iraq had just been in a terrible war against Iran, and that Saddam's assertions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction even though they didn't helped prevent Iran from invading Iraq.

saloopo Loc: Colorado

Of course it doesn't, not when you can give away everybody elses money. Liberals never tire of discussing their own generosity.

Seabird

Nor do the conservatives
So when the bible thumping belt red welfare states get their federal welfare check it's what's owed to them, not charity? We'll all gather at the river!

saloopo Loc: Colorado

Its still everybody elses money, no matter who gets it.

Richard94611

Great generalization ! Like most about liberals, utter nonsense.

saloopo Loc: Colorado

Thanks for the compliment. I agree, utter nonsense, thats what most liberals are about !

Richard94611

You misread my message

Seabird

Since some refer to liberals as utter nonsense I thought I might post an excerpt from a piece put out by the American Conservative. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/

"If a morally acceptable American conservatism is ever to extricate itself from a pseudo-scientific inverted Marxist economic theory, it must grasp that order, tradition, and stability are not coterminous with an uncritical worship of the Almighty Dollar, nor with obeisance to the demands of the wealthy. Conservatives need to think about the world they want: do they really desire a social Darwinist dystopia?

The objective of the predatory super-rich and their political handmaidens is to discredit and destroy the traditional nation state and auction its resources to themselves. Those super-rich, in turn, aim to create a “tollbooth” economy, whereby more and more of our highways, bridges, libraries, parks, and beaches are possessed by private oligarchs who will extract a toll from the rest of us. Was this the vision of the Founders? Was this why they believed governments were instituted among men—that the very sinews of the state should be possessed by the wealthy in the same manner that kingdoms of the Old World were the personal property of the monarch?

Since the first ziggurats rose in ancient Babylonia, the so-called forces of order, stability, and tradition have feared a revolt from below. Beginning with Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre after the French Revolution, a whole genre of political writings—some classical liberal, some conservative, some reactionary—has propounded this theme. The title of Ortega y Gasset’s most famous work, The Revolt of the Masses, tells us something about the mental atmosphere of this literature.

But in globalized postmodern America, what if this whole vision about where order, stability, and a tolerable framework for governance come from, and who threatens those values, is inverted? What if Christopher Lasch came closer to the t***h in The Revolt of the Elites, wherein he wrote, “In our time, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses”? Lasch held that the elites—by which he meant not just the super-wealthy but also their managerial coat holders and professional apologists—were undermining the country’s promise as a constitutional republic with their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility."

If the shoe fit's then by all means wear it

Richard94611

The quote below makes sense to me, and I think it makes sense to most liberals.


[quote=Seabird]Since some refer to liberals as utter nonsense I thought I might post an excerpt from a piece put out by the American Conservative. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/revolt-of-the-rich/


"But in globalized postmodern America, what if this whole vision about where order, stability, and a tolerable framework for governance come from, and who threatens those values, is inverted? What if Christopher Lasch came closer to the t***h in The Revolt of the Elites, wherein he wrote, “In our time, the chief threat seems to come from those at the top of the social hierarchy, not the masses”? Lasch held that the elites—by which he meant not just the super-wealthy but also their managerial coat holders and professional apologists—were undermining the country’s promise as a constitutional republic with their prehensile greed, their asocial cultural values, and their absence of civic responsibility."

saloopo Loc: Colorado

No, you misread my answer.