|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Medical EVIDENCE that LIBERALISM could literally be a DISEASE
|
|
Poster Handle
|
Anonymous Coward |
|
Post Content
|
OP: It is actually some kind of WEIRD PSYCHOLOGICAL COMPENSATION DISEASE . Somehow, they feel that if they vote for the right government policies they can do whatever they want to in life, without needing to make the real sacrifice of helping others and thus inconveniencing themselves:
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
“When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.”
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.
More at: h**ps://www.nyt*mes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
As long as liberals have laws in place that require OTHERS to spend money or make sacrifices, they can sleep peacefully at night. Then when they get push back, they go to a yearly protest (equivalent of Church?)knowing they are on the side of "right", thus sleeping even better at night, without ever having truly addressed or fixed the problem.Truly Bizarre...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 76517820 I have often said that for liberals, "It's always something for someone else to do". A concrete example that I've seen up close in liberal friends and associates is they bitch about global warming and fossil fuels and oil companies but they never, ever drive less. They want the government to make laws so that manufacturers have to make cars more efficient. Until then they do whatever they want, whenever they want, they go wherever they want, and point fingers at everyone else as the problem. I've known people who bitch about other people's choices in travel and entertainment from an environmental standpoint, but when they want to get on a plane, they just do it. I guess it's different when you fly to Europe than it is if you go to a monster truck rally or take a cruise. That's liberal logic. Great post, man. Thank you for sharing that!
On the other hand, the “Highly Concerned,” while very supportive of government action on climate, were the least likely to behave in eco-friendly ways.
This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”
Does this surprise anyone? [ link to wattsupwiththat.com (secure)]
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
