20 questions liberals can't answer(Apparently)

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Peregrine**

Hordini wrote:
Here's one from HuffPo.

And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.

*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Here's one from HuffPo.

And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.

*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.

Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.

**Relapse**

Hordini wrote:
Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Here's one from HuffPo.

And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.

*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.

Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.

Very true.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think this is a good time to give out kudos to all the posters for keeping what could have been a nasty thread some well thought out entries.

**Peregrine**

Hordini wrote:
Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.

Yes, and things like feeding the homeless are secular charity work being done by a religious organization. However, paying the salary of the preacher you listen to every sunday is no more of a charity donation than buying tickets to see your favorite band. The articles that were posted previously attempt to account for that and divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. And once you do that the difference between liberals and conservatives disappears. So what we can conclude is that the supposed "greater generosity" of conservatives is a myth, and the increased amount of "charity" donations is due almost entirely to conservatives spending more to fund their own religious activities.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

Relapse wrote:
Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".

I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible? Because remember that text is full of non-sense. We are talking super-hero whose super-strength comes from his hair level of nonsense.

**Hordini**

Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Why isn't it? Plenty of churches do legitimate charity work.

Yes, and things like feeding the homeless are secular charity work being done by a religious organization. However, paying the salary of the preacher you listen to every sunday is no more of a charity donation than buying tickets to see your favorite band. The articles that were posted previously attempt to account for that and divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. And once you do that the difference between liberals and conservatives disappears. So what we can conclude is that the supposed "greater generosity" of conservatives is a myth, and the increased amount of "charity" donations is due almost entirely to conservatives spending more to fund their own religious activities.

The HuffPo article didn't divide religious contributions into secular and religious purposes. It just made a distinction between religious charities (which included churches) and secular charities.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Something you should remember is that at least of of the Apostles carried a sword and wasn't shy about using it in the defense of Christ in the Garden. Something to ask yourself is what was the point in him being allowed to carry a sword.
My view is there were a lot of dangers in that area of the world such as animals and robbers, so it was advisable to travel armed. Grey Templar had it right. It's not "Thou shalt not kill", but "Thou shalt not murder".

I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible? Because remember that text is full of non-sense. We are talking super-hero whose super-strength comes from his hair level of nonsense.

If you're going to criticize the Bible so regularly, it would help your arguments if you actually knew something about it. And to answer your question: Yes, it's in the text.

**Peregrine**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have to ask: is the murder reference really in the original text, or is it just a rationalization that you people are putting forward to explain why things do not make any freaking sense in the Bible?

It's a translation thing. The word used in the original text can be translated literally as "kill", but it can also mean "murder". And given the constant examples of god commanding his followers to kill I think it's pretty safe to say that the original intent was much closer to a ban on murder than on killing at all.

**SilverMK2**

whembly wrote:

Hey... I'll trade ya.

No more Death Penalty.

&

No more abortions.

Cool?

The two are not equivalent.

**Hordini**

SilverMK2 wrote:
whembly wrote:

Hey... I'll trade ya.

No more Death Penalty.

&

No more abortions.

Cool?

The two are not equivalent.

That might explain why some people are okay with one and not the other.

**SilverMK2**

Hordini wrote:
That might explain why some people are okay with one and not the other.

A point I am not refuting.

**insaniak**

Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Here's one from HuffPo.

And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.

*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.

It's also worth noting that the linked study gets its figures solely from tax returns. I would be curious as to the number of people from either 'affiliation' who donate money to charity but don't declare it on their tax return. I know I generally don't.

**marv335**

It never ceases to amuse me that the same people who complain about "big government" telling them what to do are quite happy to legislate over what women to with their bodies.

For clarity, I consider myself neither conservative or liberal, and were I an American Citizen I'd probably be considered an Independent.

**Breotan**

I came here wanting to see Frazzle post a wiener dog list as a retort. I leave disappointed.

**KingCracker**

Peregrine wrote:
Hordini wrote:
Here's one from HuffPo.

And it isn't a very good one. As the article states, once you eliminate religious donations* and only consider secular charity giving red states no longer lead. And when you consider volunteering and not just cash donations it's pretty much equal. So the truth seems to be that charity and political affiliation are not very strongly connected.

*And no, donating to your church to fund religious activities is not legitimate charity work.

"I want proof to your claim!"
"OK here's some"
"This doesn't count if you take away everything that proves your point, and leaves only my point"

Yes. That's how you argue folks.

**Daemonhammer**

text removed.

Reds8n

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

As always, when I read a thread like this, I laugh out loud. Why?

Because America is a liberal country that tries to deny that it's a liberal country.

Enshrining the right of your citizens to bear arms and allow them the rights of free speech, is probably one of the most liberal things we have ever seen in human history.

Conservatives in America were the people who remained loyal to King George, the people who wanted to preserve the social order. Rebelling against Great Britain, and overthrowing the established order, is not the actions of conservatives, it is the actions of a liberal mind-set!

Fighting a civil war to end slavery is not the actions of a conservative nation.

America, you're liberal, deal with it!

Pretty sure I've said this before

**Grey Templar**

Peregrine wrote:
jasper76 wrote:
criminal too dangerous to be left alive

Not a plausible reason. Very, very few people that have been sentenced to death are the kind of super-criminals that could reasonably expect to escape from a maximum-security prison. If you can safely keep someone in prison long enough for their appeals process to finish then you can keep them in prison indefinitely.

don't want to pay money to house the criminal for life,

Not at all a plausible reason. Execution costs more than life in prison.

the law says they have to, etc.

Not likely. AFAIK the prosecution always has the option to seek the death penalty or not. I've never heard of a situation where the death penalty is mandatory for anyone convicted of a given crime.

Execution is only more expensive than life imprisonment because we are doing it incorrectly.

We can agree the justice system is messee up, but executions themselves are not the problem. Its how we run prisons in general.

A streamlined system would make executions cheaper than life if they werent practically the same thing like they are now.

**Co'tor Shas**

I'm a social liberal (and a economic, nothing, because I don't know economics) so let's see how many I can answer.

1) A few days ago, we were hearing that the Boston Marathon bombers COULD BE conservative, which proved that the Right is evil. Now, when we know that the terrorists are Muslims, how can the same liberals be saying that it means nothing?
That's funny, I never heard anything like that. Right-wing extremists can be evil, but that does not make all right-wingers evil. Besides, you can't generalize an entire fething religion as evil. Terrorists of any denomination are evil.

2) If you believe we have a “right” to things like health care, food, shelter and a good education, then doesn’t that also mean you believe we also have a right to force other people to unwillingly provide those things at gunpoint?
Is this guy serious? Those are two things have nothing yo do with each-other. My answer, no.

3) How can you simultaneously want a big government that will make decisions that have an enormous impact on the lives of every American while also saying that the character and morals of our politicians don’t matter?
Easily. I don't care about whether my politicians cheat on their wives or whatever, as long as they do a good job.

4) What exactly is the “fair share” of someone’s income that he’s earned that he should be able to keep?
pretty loaded question you got there. It appears to be implying that taxes are wrong. How about this, take the amount of money the government uses to protect our american citizens (all the consumer protection, military, medical support, policing, ect) and think to yourself, how much is that worth? Now go feth yourself, and ask a question that's not loaded, like "how much should we be paying in taxes?" Then we have to consider that individuals wealth, station, who relies on them, ect. It's not an easy question for anybody to truly answer.

5) Why is it that time and time again, revenue paid to the treasury has GONE UP after we’ve cut taxes?
Economics, so I'm not going to try.

6) Are you pro-choice or pro-abortion? If it’s pro-choice, do you feel people should be able to choose to have an assault weapon, what kind of light bulb they use in their house or whether they’d like to put their Social Security funds into a private retirement account?
You.. really are a moron aren't you?

7) If corporations are so awful, greedy and bad for the country, then shouldn’t we be celebrating when they decide to close their plants here and move overseas?
Again, how stupid are you

8) How can liberal economists like Paul Krugman be right when they claim that our economy isn’t doing well because we aren’t spending enough money when we’re already running massive, unsustainable deficits and spending is going up every year?
Econmimics, I'm not even going to touch this.

9) If Republicans don’t care about the poor,: why do studies consistently show that they give more to charity than Democrats do?
Those two things have nothing alike. Not all charities go toward the poor you know. If it is true, than a very simple answer-religion. You also have to look at percentage of income instead of just amount. People say that the Rs don't care about the poor because of their obsession with gutting welfare.

10) Give us a ballpark estimate: If something doesn’t change dramatically, how long do you think it will be until we have an economic crash in this country similar to the one we’re seeing in Greece or Cyprus?
You try answering that.

11) Since we “all agree” with the idea that our level of deficit spending is “unsustainable,” what would be wrong with permanently freezing federal spending at the current level until we balance the budget by increasing revenue, cutting spending or some combination thereof?
Because we still have to

12) If we change God’s definition of marriage to make gay marriage legal, then what’s the logical argument against polygamy or even adult siblings supposed to be?
Marrige is not based on "God's definition" you unsufferable gakker.

13) In a world where people can easily change states and can, with a bit more difficulty, permanently move to other roughly comparable parts of the globe, do you really think it’s feasible over the long haul to have a tax system where 86% of the income taxes are paid by the top 25% of the income earners?
Yes.

14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?
Because you still hired a lawer, fethwit. They still need paying.

15) How can you oppose putting murderers to death and be fine with killing innocent children via abortion?
They are not children moron. They are fetuses, that are not even able to think. My (personal) reason against the death penelty is the chance that they are wrongly convicted.

16) A minimum wage raises salaries for some workers at the cost of putting other workers out of jobs entirely. What’s the acceptable ratio for that? For every 10 people who get a higher salary, how many are you willing to see lose their jobs?
Nicely loaded question you got there.

17) The earth has been warming and cooling for thousands of years with temperature drops and increases that are much larger than the ones we’ve seen over the last century. Since we can’t adequately explain or model those changes, what makes us think we can say with any sort of confidence that global warming is being caused by man?
That's funny, I think we can explain it, and have

18) We live in a world where people have more choices than ever before in music, entertainment, careers, news sources and what to do with their time. Shouldn’t government mirror that trend by moving towards federalism and states’ rights instead of centralizing more and more power in Washington, DC?
What? You really are a moron. Those two have nothing to do with one-another

19) If people in the middle class aren’t willing to pay enough in taxes to cover the government services that they use because they don’t think it’s worth the money, shouldn’t we prune back government to a level people do feel comfortable paying for in taxes?
No. The richer portions and comfortably pay more. Also, that's a pretty bug generalization there. And is doesn't make much sense. Our main expenditure, the military, is used by everyone, so are most thing the government provides

20) If firms can get by with paying women 72 cents on the dollar for the same quality of work as men, then why don’t we see any firms with all female labor forces using those lower costs to dominate the marketplace?
Are you serious? First, that would be discrimination, second, it is established fact that women are payed less. Just because corporations haven't tried an idiotic idea to save money, doesn't change that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Also, about "God's definition of marriage", that would be polygamy, where women are bought as wives, women marry their rapists, incest, ect?

**Ahtman**

The fact this thread was allowed to flourish is a bit of a farce.

**Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl**

I am very confused about something:

14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

How is this something liberal support and conservative oppose

?

**jasper76**

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I am very confused about something:

14) If you win a lawsuit that’s filed against you, why should you have to pay huge legal bills when you did nothing wrong while the person who filed the suit pays no penalty for wrongly accusing you?

How is this something liberal support and conservative oppose ?

Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.

**LordofHats**

jasper76 wrote:

Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.

That's just silly. We all know who's really to blame.

**jasper76**

LordofHats wrote:
jasper76 wrote:

Don't waste too much time thinking about this. The questioner pretty clearly is just assigning blame for whatever he perceives as wrong to some sort of liberal cabaal.

That's just silly. We all know who's really to blame.

Hey now...I'm from Maryland!

**DarkLink**

marv335 wrote:It never ceases to amuse me that the same people who complain about "big government" telling them what to do are quite happy to legislate over what women to with their bodies.

That's because you fundamentally misunderstand their stance on the issue. Pro-choice sees things from that perspective, sure, but the reason behind pro-life stances is that they believe that abortions literally kill babies. Now, you may not agree that the baby is alive until later so it doesn't count, but if you don't acknowledge that disagreement as something more complex than "well, they just hate women" then you really don't understand what's going on.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As always, when I read a thread like this, I laugh out loud. Why?

Because America is a liberal country that tries to deny that it's a liberal country.

Enshrining the right of your citizens to bear arms and allow them the rights of free speech, is probably one of the most liberal things we have ever seen in human history.

Conservatives in America were the people who remained loyal to King George, the people who wanted to preserve the social order. Rebelling against Great Britain, and overthrowing the established order, is not the actions of conservatives, it is the actions of a liberal mind-set!

Fighting a civil war to end slavery is not the actions of a conservative nation.

America, you're liberal, deal with it!

Pretty sure I've said this before

To make it even more mixed up, go back to thee 60's and read up on the political players. You'll find a lot of comments from Democrats in favor of segregation and racist policies, with the KKK being heavily tied to the Democratic party. Republican organizations like the NRA, on the other hand, tended to heavily support ending segregation in various ways. Then the Democrats realized that with a welfare heavy agenda they could capture the minority vote, while Republicans kind of took a more "you're legally free now, go off and do whatever you want and we don't really care" attitude so people just kind of assume that Democrats have always been pro-minority and Republicans racist.

**hotsauceman1**

Yeah, its wierd, Im Reading "Gone with the wind" And hearing southerners say "We nee more democrats" Is kinda funny, because you will never hear that now

**jasper76**

The Republican Party deliberately adopted "The Southern Strategy" to win votes in the south by appealing to the racist and/or religious elements of southern voters.. IIRC, Richard Nixon was the first presidential candidate to adopt this strategy in Presidential politics, and though it is less blatantly racist than it was before, it has never really gone away to this day.

**LordofHats**

I think that oversimplifies it a bit (and gives Republicans too much credit). After a Democratic President passed the Civil Right's act, it's not like the Southern voting blocks had much where else to go. They could vote with all the black people (who they hated) or they could vote for the other side (who they hated less).

Yeah Nixon and the Republicans handed out an olive branch for them, but all they really did was swipe up a voting block that went up for grabs by changing their tone a little.

**jasper76**

Fair enough. I was rebutting the incorrect assertion that 60s era Republicans had an attitude of just "You're free now, do what you want".

**Azreal13**

Apologies for rewinding a few pages, but I'm surprised this was allowed to slide..

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Which is why we dont kill chimps or elephants.

CITES wrote: Over 20,000 African elephants were poached across the continent in 2013 according to a report released today by the Secretariat of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Although the sharp upward trend in illegal elephant killing observed since the mid-2000s, which had peaked in 2011, is levelling off, poaching levels remain alarmingly high and continue to far exceed the natural elephant population growth rates, resulting in a further decline in elephant populations across Africa.

WWF wrote:Chimpanzees have already disappeared from 4 African countries, and are nearing extinction in many others. Deforestation and commercial hunting for bushmeat are taking a terrible toll on most populations.

Not to mention the killing of adult chimps in order to secure the juveniles for the tourist trade.

**Blood Hawk**

These questions remind me of the emails that my fathers very conservative friends email him all the time which he then forwards to me.

They have a lot of "facts", which sound good at first glance until you think about them for more than 5 seconds and you realize they are all bs.

Also the whole thing about balanced budget amendments or locking the government into a certain spending level is probably the stupidest fething thing I can think of. It is like saying that we should lock the sterling wheel of the car in place with a device so the car is always driving straight forward, because we are currently driving straight forward. Yea we may be currently driving straight forward but what if we need to turn the car left or right eventually.