When you call out liberals for doing the same things that they complain others are doing

This me trying to fit in while commenting on a political meme. 292aou.jpg [image not found]

27ytf6.jpg [image not found] Best at hide and seek.

Actually, it is a verified statistic.
The reason should be obvious. It's because Liberals feel that it is the government's job (rather than charities) to help people and that the money is be obtained through coersion (i.e. taxes). Conservative tend to believe that people should be helped through voluntary charity (not government coersion).

So....verify it

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

1. Opinion.
2. Utah.

1. Quoting data from a book plus data from a Google study that indicates conservatives tend to donate almost twice as much as liberals.
2. Utah? Rally? That’s your rebuttal?
Sounds like you didn’t really expect anyone to verify it so now you’re grasping at straws trying to discredit the sources. There are many more sources out there but I’m sure you’ll just blow them off since they don’t jive with your own opinion.

1, rich poeple give more than poor people
2. religious people give more than non-religious people
3. there are more rich & religious people that identify as "conservative" than there are those that identify as "liberal"
4. bottom line is Wealthy, and/or so-called "religious" people give more per capita than poorer, less religious people.

5. THEY ARE TAX WRITE-OFFS

Way to go champ. Real groundbreaking stuff there.

PS- NYT was Fake news, And google is evil and liberal remember?

1. You didn’t even read the headline of the 2nd source — “Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals”.

2. The fact that more religious people are conservative doesn’t detract from the fact that conservatives give more to charity. It might explain why.

3. Charitable donations are not “tax write offs”, they are tax deductible and not limited to religious people or poor people. So what’s your point?

So, in your opinion, the NYT is fake news, Thus, the book by Arthur Brooks is fake too since it was sited in a NYT column.
If Google is “liberal” then it poroves the verified sources are not exclusively conservative.

Way to go, chump, you just validated it for yourself. :)

https://i.imgflip.com/2bjfwg.jpg

Funny cuz I am a liberal gun owner, vegetarian (eat all the meat you want), Paid my own way to a $200k a year job from relative nothingness, watch fox news (cuz it's funny), pretty much atheirst but want no god in politics cuz thats what the founders set up....imagine if we do let religion in? MAHSLUMS COULD RUN SHIT!...

But yeah I do believe we all deserve to be healthy, so you got me on the healthcare.

Triggered much? Progressive much? Where do you want your check sent?

LOL "triggered".... that's all you got?

Actually, he sites data from a book by Arthur Brooks. He also mentions a study by Google which shows average contributions by conservatives is almost double that of liberals. But I guess that’s in some other universe. :)

Brooks is the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

He's a biased person to say the least. And the NYT is fake news....remember??

However to my point above in my other comment, the NYT story adds:

"According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. "

So again- take religion out of the mix and Liberals are doing just fine at philanthropy.

So, if we take donations of all non-religious liberals out of the mix and it shows conservatives donate more, what does that prove? Nothing.
You’re grasping at straws again. Religious organizations give more to charity, and where do religious organizations get their money? From donations. As I said above, the fact that more conservatives are religious doesn’t detract from the fact that they give more to charity. It might explain why, but that’s all.

Multi universes are so much fun.

Moderate left.

Ok, and that stops you from being a hypocrite how?? I'll even catch myself doing it. lol but i at least try NOT too. Compared to SOOOOOOOOOOO many doing so blatantly without a care in the world..

https://i.imgflip.com/2bjfwg.jpg

One Million Moms should be renamed to "A few thousand snowflakes". That's just me.

Not to mention that there aren't even One Million of them.

True, true... quite a deceptive name, though.

Exactly.

It seems that only conservatives can be hypocrites, because to be a hypocrite you have to have some type of morals.

There are two definitions to the word moral. The first is.. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.

We all know how closed minded liberals are. They are unwilling to take in new facts and allow them to change their opinion. Like how they believe the world isn't 4 billion years old. A thousand scientists can present them with facts proving it is but they aren't capable of seeing it for the lesson it is and learning from the experience. In that way they have no morals.

The second definition is... a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.

Liberals fail miserably at this as well. They even have some old book that tells them how they should act. Instead of acting that way they use it as a way of feeling superior to other people! They twists it's words around to fit their own opinion. If you don't believe that opinion they will threaten you with an invisible man in the sky that will punish you for all eternity. They use this to justify treating people different from them horribly even though their book tells them not to judge or they will be judged themselves. If that doesn't prove they have no morals nothing will.

The moral to this story is that sarcasm is really funny to me ;)

And they say pre-frontal lobotomies are a bad thing.

Perhaps in looking at your question he saw how utterly ridiculous was his statement. Though there is a germ of truth in it, because typically the more self righteous people are, the more prone to deviancy they tend to be.

Reagan, the moral majority, tv evangalists, conservative politicians - the more adamant, the more likely to hire a personal male Swedish masseuse for that summit oversees while their mistress pines for their next shopping trip using money 'borrowed' from his re-election campaign.

While such behavior isn't bound to any party, it's no longer shocking with Republicans.

True that.
Just seems their base has been more and more likely to openly applaud their own doing it, practically. Witness Trump's dalliances. The same crowd that made up tales about Mr & Mrs Obama in order to make them look 'bad' are giving Trump the studman thumb's up.

no longer shocking with Republicans because it happens so often*