I lol’d. Sean Hannity is hilarious.

Again with this shit Sean?

I’m not a huge fan of Hannity but he’s right about this. You guys love to spend other peoples money. Your own? not so much. That’s a fact.

Timzank, how can you even prove that dogmatic idiocy? Literally, how can you prove it. You can’t, it’s not a fact, it’s bullshit from conservative dicks who don’t even have real arguments against the political view.

It is the church and it’s members to do the charity work in this country not the governments. The church has failed in doing that so the government has had to step in.

Snips…try this “google” “who gives more to charity liberals or conservatives”

Advanced searchAbout 194,000 results (0.35 seconds)

Ain’t to gifted in the common sense department are ya?

Why doesn’t BHO help his destitute half-brother and aunt?

Because he is a liberal.

No timzank, prove it. Prove that “liberals love spending other peoples money”.

Snipzor says:
May 18, 2010 at 10:49 am

No timzank, prove it. Prove that “liberals love spending other peoples money”.

That’s easy!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html

As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. THAT IS MORE THAN THE ENTIRE ACCUMULATED NATIONAL DEBT FOR THE FIRST 225 YEARS OF U.S. HISTORY. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-02-02/news/17842521_1_tax-cuts-house-republicans-head-of-tax-policy

Deficit climbs to record under Obama’s budget

$3.8 trillion budget: Jobs take priority; reaction swift
February 02, 2010|
By Carolyn Lochhead, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Washington — President Obama’s $3.8 trillion budget blueprint for next year sets a new deficit record of $1.56 trillion, includes a big jobs program and rolls back Bush-era tax cuts for high-income Americans.

Snipzor says:
May 18, 2010 at 10:01 am

Snipzor, did you know that those “conservative dicks” at The Hoover Institute at Stanford disagree with you.

“Over the past decade, a number of policy scholars have examined parallel bedrock constituencies in America’s political parties. On one side, the Republicans rely on the near-monolithic support of Christian conservatives, a fact that has been documented ad nauseam by political commentators and the mainstream press for more than 20 years. Less well understood, but equally important, is the role of liberal secularists in shaping the policies of the American left. These people are the religious and political inverse of Christian conservatives: They vote for liberal political candidates and hold left-wing views on issues like school prayer and the death penalty. But most saliently, religion does not play a significant role in their lives. As political scientists Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio recently demonstrated in the Public Interest (“Our Secularist Democratic Party,” Fall 2002), liberal secularists are at least as influential in molding the platform of the Democratic Party as are Christian conservatives for the Republicans.”

….

“This essay focuses on the latter. Using data from a large survey conducted in 2000, I investigate differences in charitable giving and volunteering between secular and religious people. I look for explanations for these differences in the current debates about social capital, the role of government in social policy, and the separation of church and state. Finally, I explore the implications of charitable giving differences for policy and politics.1″

…..

“On the other hand, a growing un-charity might bode ill for American progressive politics. In his The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899), Thorstein Veblen, the iconoclastic economist from the early twentieth century, wrote that the “residue of the religious life — the sense of communion with the environment, or with the generic life process — as well as the impulse of charity or of sociability, act in a pervasive way to shape men’s habits of thought for the economic purpose.” Tocqueville made roughly the same point even more vividly in Democracy in America (1835): “Men are . . . immeasurably interested in acquiring fixed ideas of God, of the soul, and of their general duties to their Creator and their fellow men; for doubt on these first principles would abandon all their actions to chance and would condemn them in some way to disorder and impotence.” Certainly, Tocqueville and Veblen are not alone in the belief that economic and cultural health are dependent on the related values of religion and charity. And it is not hard to imagine a growing popular distaste for a political wing distinguished by its lack of giving spirit and religious spirituality.

Some religious liberals — who currently give and volunteer at rates comparable to religious conservatives — may ultimately sense they face a choice between politics and charity, and many may choose the latter. (This danger is reminiscent of the well-documented Democratic hemorrhage of Catholic voters over the past 20 years, commonly attributed to the increasingly strict party line against pro-life viewpoints.) Indeed, the importance of charity to a religious lifestyle might be one “missing link” in explaining why fewer and fewer religious people have tended to classify themselves as Democrats over the past 30 years — from 37 percent in 1972, to 31 percent in 1983, to 25 percent in 1998.”

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

I just selected a few excerpts from the essay, which is well worth the time to read.

I googled “charitable donations by political party”, Tim, and got millions of hits.

Snipzor, you are the beneficiary of more info about this subject, of which I must say you are woefully ignorant, then you could absorb in a lifetime. The question is, will you even glance at any of it.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html yeah whatever

Grammie, he (snips) won’t look at, read, or accept ANY of it. He’s blind to it.

http://www.shoes2.us/

Think, man, think! Obama doesn’t care about them because they are no kin of his. Five will get you ten that DNA analysis would disprove Obama the Luo as Obama’s birth father. In the first place, Obama’s DNA would almost certainly show a father in a haplogroup wholly inconsistent with that of a Luo tribesman. In the second place, Obama’s Y-DNA most likely will not show the cumulative mutations that will have been passed on to the patrilineal descendents of Obama the Luo. In spite of repeated requests, nobody has shown me DNA proof that Obama the Luo is Obama’s birth father. It would be wonderful if they could, as Obama the Luo was an alien; hence Obama could not be a natural born citizen of the United States and would be barred from the Office of President by U.S. Const. Art. II Sec. 1. That would be too easy. The certificate of live birth must be from an amended birth certificate reflecting an adoption. All of the hoopla about African relatives was just political bunkum designed to garner votes from the pathologically credulous saps that the Obama crowd believe to make up the American electorate. Oh, and to denigrate any opponent as a racist.

Welcome to my Website http://www.tnta.us

You people will turn anything into a pissing match. It’s hilarious.