Secret Santas demostrate that financially well off individuals aren't evil misers as liberals would have people to believe.
I'm going to take a break for a moment from going after the anti Christmas progressive maggots. I want to talk about people who symbolize what Christmas is all about. The old saying is that "caring is sharing". I give donations to the Salvation Army every Christmas. I'm definitely not rich. I give what I can though. It makes me feel good to help. We've all heard at one time or another by the liberal tin foilers that the rich are evil people, and they don't deserve to keep their wealth on the same level as other people do. I doubt liberals could even comprehend these stories of selfless giving by people who have more money then the rest of us. To liberals, the government is suppose to be the ultimate charity redistribution entity. The rest of us normal thinking people understand that we are the ones who help our fellow man and woman by giving to charity. Liberals are great wasteful spenders of other people's tax money in the name of supposedly helping others. Very rarely will they pry any cash out of their own wallets and purses to "help the cause" so to speak. Anyways, this is what some evil, greedy rich folks have been doing with their money this Christmas season. In Juplin Missouri, a secret Santa anonymously donated $100,000 dollars to the Juplin Salvation Army. The money given by this evil rich person will actually go to help many people in need in Juplin. That secret Santa should be ashamed of what he did. Here's another story of an evil rich person who has nothing better to do then to help others in need in by giving $ 40,000 to a local food bank in Minnesota.
If that act of selflessness by that evil rich scrooge wasn't bad enough, this should really get your blood boiling. A rich miser in Tennessee had the nerve to drop thousands of dollars into a Salvation Army's kettle in Tennessee. I'm outraged just thinking about it.
It's obvious I am being sarcastic in my comments. The fact is that people who are financially well off aren't evil people as liberals would have us all to believe. These individuals and countless more like them aren't forced to give their money to charities in order to help others. They do so, because they WANT TO. A liberal would say that those people only gave to charity to get a "tax write off". These folks can't get a tax write off since they gave the money anonymously. These were donations came from the heart of the individuals. I've never subscribed to the class warfare tactic, and I never will. By these people giving money to charities, they are doing more good for their communities and the nation then what some self righteous, arrogant politician who's apart of the government ever could do.
If that act of selflessness by that evil rich scrooge wasn't bad enough, this should really get your blood boiling. A rich miser in Tennessee had the nerve to drop thousands of dollars into a Salvation Army's kettle in Tennessee. I'm outraged just thinking about it.
It's obvious I am being sarcastic in my comments. The fact is that people who are financially well off aren't evil people as liberals would have us all to believe. These individuals and countless more like them aren't forced to give their money to charities in order to help others. They do so, because they WANT TO. A liberal would say that those people only gave to charity to get a "tax write off". These folks can't get a tax write off since they gave the money anonymously. These were donations came from the heart of the individuals. I've never subscribed to the class warfare tactic, and I never will. By these people giving money to charities, they are doing more good for their communities and the nation then what some self righteous, arrogant politician who's apart of the government ever could do.
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 12:26 PM
11 Comments:
I don't judge rich people as bad because I don't believe money changes people. If you were always a self-serving jerk being rich will only make the manifestation of this short coming more obvious.
I will admit I want to be rich one day. I think anybody who doesn't admit they would like to have more money is a liar. A lot of the progressives who rail against the evil rich are pretty wealthy themselves.
To me those government programs are kind of like bribes.
Hell, I don't know where to start on your latest craziness...
First off, if the people who gave the donations gave the "anonymously", how do you know if they were liberals or conservatives? Hell, for all you know they could have come from George Soros!!
Secondly, your essay is an irrational discourse relaying a totally false impression. Nowhere during your rant did you include the idea that "some rich people", or "a particular percentage" of the rich were philanthropic during the Christmas holiday. Even the title gives a misleading idea of "the rich";
"Secret Santas demostrate that financially well off individuals aren't evil misers as liberals would have people to believe".
It's silly to think that "all" liberals (or even a majority) believes that the "financially well off" are evil misers. Most of those who are financially well off are that way because they subscribe to making as much money as they can, anyway they can.
Giving money away (especially anonymously) doesn't make money. Thus, giving away you hard earned dollars is an act from the heart and soul, not your bank account, which merely supply's the "MEANS."
So-called "libruls" make light of the fact that the rich (at times) seems oblivious to the plight of the working class and the poor. It's merely a statement which points out the inequality of the "MEANS" in which the very few (the rich) to manipulate politicians, the economy, social ideas, job opportunity, and basically whatever else they desire.
continued next post...
cont...
There are over 400 billionaires in America. Let just say that at Christmas each one of them gave away one percent (1%) of their wealth to food banks for the poor. With just the top 20's wealth totally about $350 billion, were talking about $3.5 billion to feed the poor on Christmas. Add in the 1% of the other 380 billionaires and that total could jump to around 40 to 50 billion! (just about the amount that the government spends to feed poor families for AN ENTIRE YEAR!!!).
By no means do I mean to imply that billionaires "should" or need to give away their money. My point is that YOUR "Secret Santas" are RARE....VERY RARE when it comes to "the financially well off."
So your entire essay is basically an exercise in propaganda. As I told you before, rich people love you and your idea of protecting their wealth. As long you're willing to forward the idea that most, if not all of them could at the very least show compassion when called upon to share the wealth... (there's absolutely nothing "socialist" about sharing your wealth if the MEANS provide)
And, just to add as a "buffer" to your claim that;
CB;"Liberals are great wasteful spenders of other people's tax money in the name of supposedly helping others. Very rarely will they pry any cash out of their own wallets and purses to "help the cause" so to speak".
Heres a story about a group of billionaires who pledge to give away at least half their wealth during their lifetime or after their death. Here is the list of those who have signed the pledge. Take notice that "most of them" are known "LIBERALS."
Note: Of course I'm one to wait and see, be they liberal or not...
Sojournerlove "I don't judge rich people as bad because I don't believe money changes people. If you were always a self-serving jerk being rich will only make the manifestation of this short coming more obvious."
Liberalism can't succeed unless they have people divided and at each others throats. The arguement the left is making for why there should be an inheritance tax is beyond lame. They claim that the heirs "didn't work for it". Who in the bloody blue hell are liberals to determine that the heirs should get what their relatives left to them? Everything I think about these power hungry idiots, I think of Hugo Chavez. They are no different Sojournerlove. Liberals believe they are the ones entitled to other people's wealth even in the grave.
p allen "Hell, I don't know where to start on your latest craziness..."
A liberal calling a non liberal "crazy" lol That's rich allen.
p allen "First off, if the people who gave the donations gave the "anonymously", how do you know if they were liberals or conservatives?
There was a study conducted back in 2008 that showed that conservatives give more to charity then liberals do. They give more money, more time and even more blood.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
Conservatives also tend to give more money to charities that actually help the poor. Liberal give their money the National Endowment of the Arts or Public Library. Also, I doubt liberals would be so quick to part with their money giving it to the CHRISTIAN based Salvation Army.
p allen "Hell, for all you know they could have come from George Soros!!Secondly, your essay is an irrational discourse relaying a totally false impression. Nowhere during your rant did you include the idea that "some rich people", or "a particular percentage" of the rich were philanthropic during the Christmas holiday. Even the title gives a misleading idea of "the rich";
Right allen, I'm going to sit here and actually believe that it was a remote possibility that George Sorros donated money to the salvation army and food pantries lol George gives money to media matters, the huffington post, the tides foundation. None of these entities have been known to help the poor allen.
p allen "It's silly to think that "all" liberals (or even a majority) believes that the "financially well off" are evil misers. Most of those who are financially well off are that way because they subscribe to making as much money as they can, anyway they can. "
Why demonize people who belong to an economic group at all allen? It funny listening to liberal claim that the Republican Party is "the party of the rich. Using economic class warfare for political gain has become so transparent. As long as a person makes their money legally and doesn't hurt anyone while doing it, it's frankly nobody's business what he or she does with their money. I remember the left demonizing the CEO of Exxon Mobile for his compensation package. The only people that had the right to have a say in that issue were the shareholders and the board of directors. That didn't stop non shareholder liberals from mouthing off though.
p allen "So-called "libruls" make light of the fact that the rich (at times) seems oblivious to the plight of the working class and the poor.
These same liberals who make light are RICH THEMSELVES and they ARE OBLIVIOUS. It is so LAUGHABLE listening to RICH LIBERALS TALK ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DIVIDE!! IT IS SO DAM HYPOCRITICAL!! How could anyone take these fools seriously? John Edwards talked about the "two america" when he was running for president, yet this guy built a six million dollar house in North Carolina, had four hundred dollar haircuts, and he had the gull to talk about the "two Americas". He also set up a S Class corporate entity, so he could AVOID PAYING MEDICARE TAXES. Nancy Pelosi flies back and forth from San Fran to DC on a PRIVATE JET, no mingling with the masses for her flying commercial. Oh no. Princess is worth $ 150 million. I loved it how John Kerry talked about the rich folks needing to pay their "fair share", yet he moved his own YACHT to Maine to AVOID PAYING THE TAX ON HIS YACHT in Massachusetts. Look how many tax cheats that are in Barry's own administration. Forget about them paying their fair share, they didn't pay any share at all.
p allen "It's merely a statement which points out the inequality of the "MEANS" in which the very few (the rich) to manipulate politicians, the economy, social ideas, job opportunity, and basically whatever else"
Inequality? lol Don't make me laugh. Everybody has the right to purse the accumulation of wealth, nobody is guaranteed it allen, wake up. There is no such thing as "equal outcomes". Some people are self starters while others are slackers. It only begs to reason that the out comes between the two groups are going to "unequal".
CB;"There was a study conducted back in 2008 that showed that conservatives give more to charity then liberals do".
Yes, I'm familiar with that study. FOX News (whose viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources) ran it for a week. That study was conducted by conservative Arthur C. Brooks who works for the "conservative non-partisan" American Enterprise Institute. Conservative non-partisan??? Seems to me that even "Liberal non-partisan" would be an oxymoron! Yeah...right... and President Obama gets the "Neo-conservative non-partisan" vote...right?
Moreover, Brooks seems to use your method of "who" is giving to charity. He just "says" who's giving with no actual proof. Apparently he interviewed "no one", but simply compiled his data from which presidential candidate won a particular state. You could come up with an insurmountable of mythical data showing just about anything from states voting patterns. But if you don't have hard facts, what good is it?
CB;"They give more money, more time and even more blood".
Yeah, right... All those conservatives lined up daily at the local Plasma center across from the projects.
CB;"George gives money to media matters, the huffington post, the tides foundation. None of these entities have been known to help the poor allen".
You see there?? That's what happens when you only watch FOX news! Pity the misinformed...
First off, I only mentioned Soros as a being the possible donor, more so as a hypothetical reference. However, your flagrant disregard for the "truth" has led you to attack a liberal at any cause... even if you must lie!!
$100 million to Human Rights Watch.
$50 million to New York City-based Millennium Promise to help eliminate poverty in dozens of African villages.
Along with his promise to donate half his fortune to charity upon his death.
Some right-wingers (ala' Glenn Beck) have called his charitable donations corrupt. Frankly, who knows if they are. Still, it doesn't negate the fact that he has given to charities.
CB;"John Edwards talked about the "two america" when he was running for president, yet this guy built a six million dollar house in North Carolina, had four hundred dollar haircuts".
News Flash Tyrone!! John Edwards isn't every liberal, and every liberal isn't John Edwards.
But wait a minute... Aren't you the one who doesn't concern himself with rich peoples money? So what, he has an opinion that says there's "two Americas". That's his "opinion", isn't it? It's his money! Why are you concerned with "his" $5 million home and "his" $400 haircut? You can't point out his hypocrisy without denying your own. Looks to me like you're both hypocrites!
CB;"Everybody has the right to purse the accumulation of wealth".
True! Everybody does. But is it "reality" or even sensibly reasonable to believe that everybody can? Even those that you or I might consider the best at what the do, for reasons other than their own, wont make it.
Everybody has the right to play professional sports. Everybody has the right to go to Harvard. Everybody has the right to be a commentator on FOX news! Everybody has the right win a million dollars in the lottery! But what does that say, what does it mean?? NOTHING! Because "EVERYBODY" could never do, accomplish, actualize, attain, realize, or complete, because only the "FEW"...an extremely low percentage of those who put forth the best efforts, will ever do!!!
CB;"nobody is guaranteed it allen, wake up".
I beg to differ. There are the few who do have "guarantees." As if people aren't born into wealth? (ever heard of the "Silver Spoon?") Tell that to the Rockefeller's, Hiltons, Fords, or anyone who was born into a rich family being primed to take over the family business. Tell them that they have no "guarantee" that they will acquire any, or part of their parents wealth. Sure, one or two will leave their fortunes to the cat, but that's definitely not the norm.
CB:"Some people are self starters while others are slackers".
Tyrone, to the average rich person you would be considered a "slacker." Hell, you admitted that you don't even make 250k! Being a multi-millionaire equates to a life of privilege. Money buys privilege and denotes power in our society. As we say down here in the hood, "Money talks, Bull$#!t walks"!!!
Merry Christmas to Tyrone & family and all the posters at WuBA!
Good Debate:
Points:
george Soros brought down 4 nations by his own admission, and it was fun according to him on TV. Now to bring down America is next. It is a gAme.
Nothing wrong with being rich.
the poor will always be with us, Jesus said.
We all have the freedom but not the right.
Freedom is guranteed.
Freedom to be enslaved or not.
Freedom to attend Havard if the money is guaranteed.
I notice Democrats have money, so why cant Republicans.
When the Demd. were trying to get control from Republicans the idea that Republicand were rich to scare poor whites and Blacks. It worked. LOOOK AT ALLEN.
Post a Comment
<< Home