Socialism makes people worse

[JerrySeinfeld]

This endless debate about socialism is tiresome.

Face it, lefties. The cold war is over. YOU LOST.

Lefties actually believe that giving more money to the government is the answer to societies ills.

Righties know this to be generally false.

All this talk about the poor soughts in NFLD has me shedding a tear. Here's the deal boys:

No more money. You're on your own.

Since when is your shitty fishery my problem. No work? Go somewhere else.

Can't afford the real estate? Whose problem is that? Not mine.

Lefties dig a hole for themselves then wait for the government to bail them out.

Have childeren...can't afford it - cry to the government for daycare.....fishin doesn't cut it, can't find a job, blame the government.

The bottom line here is that righties take resposibility for their own affairs,whereas lefties expect the government to jump in.

Nuff said.

[Riverwind]

Face it, lefties. The cold war is over. YOU LOST.

What does the cold war have to do with anything?

The bottom line here is that righties take resposibility for their own affairs,whereas lefties expect the government to jump in.

For the most part righties are people who happen to be well off at the moment they have a job/skill/money. Take those away and 9 or 10 righties will be screaming for gov't help.

[Riverwind]

Your numbers are way off. Per capita GDPs from the World FactBook

I quoted numbers based on real GDP. You provided numbers which are fudged to account for cost of living.

[lost&outofcontrol]

This endless debate about socialism is tiresome.

Face it, lefties. The cold war is over. YOU LOST.

The cold war proved that relatively free capitalism will overpower state controlled capitalism, that's all it did. If you truly believed that the Soviet Union was communist, you need to educate yourself. Any chance the soviets had of becoming communist died with Lenin and the ousting of Trotsky.

Nuff said.

Indeed

[JerrySeinfeld]

For the most part righties are people who happen to be well off at the moment they have a job/skill/money. Take those away and 9 or 10 righties will be screaming for gov't help.

I completely agree with you.

Everyone's looking out for #1 at the end of the day.

But remember in saying that, the flip side of your coin is that lefties are generally those with shitty jobs, low income or bad prospects. This is a point I tried to make about lefties previously as was crucified for trolling.

Fact is, its merely the truth. You said it,not me

[BubberMiley]

But remember in saying that, the flip side of your coin is that lefties are generally those with shitty jobs, low income or bad prospects.

But when they're not, you criticize them for being elitist limousine-liberal, champagne socialists.

[Riverwind]

But remember in saying that, the flip side of your coin is that lefties are generally those with shitty jobs, low income or bad prospects. This is a point I tried to make about lefties previously as was crucified for trolling.

You need to take a remedial course in logic: stating that right wing types tend to self centered well off types does not in any way mean that all people who are well off are right wing and that all people who are not well off are left wing.

What I stated was the type of people who take the more self-centered right wing positions are also the type of people who will demand gov't help the second their personal circumstances take a turn for the worse.

[JerrySeinfeld]

But remember in saying that, the flip side of your coin is that lefties are generally those with shitty jobs, low income or bad prospects. This is a point I tried to make about lefties previously as was crucified for trolling.

You need to take a remedial course in logic: stating that right wing types tend to self centered well off types does not in any way mean that all people who are well off are right wing and that all people who are not well off are left wing.

What I stated was the type of people who take the more self-centered right wing positions are also the type of people who will demand gov't help the second their personal circumstances take a turn for the worse.

Since when are right wing positions more self-centered?

[BubberMiley]

Since when are right wing positions more self-centered?

When they say things like:

No more money. You're on your own.

Since when is your shitty fishery my problem. No work? Go somewhere else.

Can't afford the real estate? Whose problem is that? Not mine.

[Montgomery Burns]

Your numbers are way off. Per capita GDPs from the World FactBook

I quoted numbers based on real GDP. You provided numbers which are fudged to account for cost of living.

Why won't you give your source?

[Riverwind]

Why won't you give your source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...l%29_per_capita

[Montgomery Burns]

Since when are right wing positions more self-centered?

When they say things like:

No more money. You're on your own.

Since when is your shitty fishery my problem. No work? Go somewhere else.

Can't afford the real estate? Whose problem is that? Not mine.

I took it as Jerry being blunt about life.

Is it my fault that the fishermen in NFLD are struggling? No.

I want to help them but they have to learn to help theirselves. I donate sporadically to charity but I would donate more if I could keep more of my income. I wouldn't feel forced to give; I would do it on my own accord. It's been proven time and time again that rightwingers out-donate leftwingers.

We are a generous lot.

[Riverwind]

It's been proven time and time again that rightwingers out-donate leftwingers.

Source?

[Renegade]

For the most part righties are people who happen to be well off at the moment they have a job/skill/money. Take those away and 9 or 10 righties will be screaming for gov't help.

Spar, is this your opinion or a fact? Do you have a source to substantiate this?

[Riverwind]

is this your opinion or a fact? Do you have a source to substantiate this?

My opinion. I feel that most people are fundamentally selfish and will take positions that suit their personal circumstances. If those circumstances change their opinions change. The Newfoundland outport fishermen had a proud tradition of being independent, pioneers that did not want or need gov't. That changed as soon as the fish disappeared. Same thing with Alberta beef farmers and BSE.

[Renegade]

is this your opinion or a fact? Do you have a source to substantiate this?

My opinion. I feel that most people are fundamentally selfish and will take positions that suit their personal circumstances. If those circumstances change their opinions change. The Newfoundland outport fishermen had a proud tradition of being independent, pioneers that did not want or need gov't. That changed as soon as the fish disappeared. Same thing with Alberta beef farmers and BSE.

I will agree that many people put self-interest first and their opinions are swayed by personal circumstances. I don't believe the number is as high as you seem to, nor is it a trait confined to right-wingers.

[Riverwind]

I will agree that many people put self-interest first and their opinions are swayed by personal circumstances. I don't believe the number is as high as you seem to, nor is it a trait confined to right-wingers.

Call me a cynic. I don't have stats to back me up but 80-90% is a reasonable guess based on my life experience. However, people who's opinions change due to circumstances usually do not forgot where they came from so they usually are not extremists when they express their new found opinions.

The same trait applies to left wingers as well.

[Montgomery Burns]

It's been proven time and time again that rightwingers out-donate leftwingers.

Source?

The article that started this thread. Do you have proof he is wrong?

[Riverwind]

The article that started this thread. Do you have proof he is wrong?

The article does not list its sources - it just claims that people from conservative states give more to charity. However, even if the numbers are accurate they mean nothing if the numbers include donations to churches. Donating money to keep a suburban church running is not really helping the disadvantaged - it is just paying to keep a private social club running.

[Montgomery Burns]

Riverwind:

Donating money to keep a suburban church running is not really helping the disadvantaged - it is just paying to keep a private social club running.

You've got to be kidding. Churches donate a lot. It's the parasitical govt agencies and UN idiots who force taxpayers to pay for their well-funded social club.

[geoffrey]

Riverwind:

Donating money to keep a suburban church running is not really helping the disadvantaged - it is just paying to keep a private social club running.

You've got to be kidding. Churches donate a lot. It's the parasitical govt agencies and UN idiots who force taxpayers to pay for their well-funded social club.

Depends on the Church Monty, there are alot of exceptions where Churches end up being merely social clubs. There are obviously more cases when Churches do great charity work too.

[Riverwind]

You've got to be kidding. Churches donate a lot. It's the parasitical govt agencies and UN idiots who force taxpayers to pay for their well-funded social club.

It costs a lot a money to build and maintain those fancy suburban churches. I suspect the vast majority of the funds donated to churches are used to help the congregation that donated the money in the first place. I know people who work collecting money for church projects and they agreed with my assement when I asked them.

My point is: you cannot use donation numbers to draw any conclusions about the relative generousity of people. If you want to draw those conclusions you must find numbers that exclude donations to churches.

[Montgomery Burns]

My point is: you cannot use donation numbers to draw any conclusions about the relative generousity of people. If you want to draw those conclusions you must find numbers that exclude donations to churches.

Why do you want to exclude church donations?

[Riverwind]

Why do you want to exclude church donations?

Because donations to churches that simply pay to keep a private social club running in the suburbs are not true charitable donations.

[Leafless]

Riverwind

You wrote- " Because donations to churches that simply pay to keep a private social club running in the suburbs are not true charitable donations."

Says who Riverwind????

You??

Afraid not as Canadian law decides that factor.

There are four general categories Canadian registered charities to have exclusively charitable purposes by the common law.

In this regard the courts have idenified four general categories of charitable purposes.

(1)- Relief of poverty

(2) Advancement of education

(3) Advancement of religion

(3) Other puposes beneficial to the community in a way the law regards as a charity.