Warren Buffett to Match Republicans' Donations toward the Nat'l Debt.

That is both correlational and an average. It does not mean that any given conservative gives more than any given liberal.

As for the not being evil thing: Well, there's also the fact that he's been a responsible investor, as opposed to the reckless Wall Street types.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:06:18 PM by Balmung

Micheal Moore is an idiot that nobody listens to, though. he mostly exists for the republicans to point at and claim all liberals are psychotic morons like him.

And just because Rush Limbaugh gives money to "charity" (and god knows which charities he'd give to) doesnt change the fact he's a festering pustule of hyperbole and populist furor. He's pretty much the conservative Micheal Moore, in that respect. Constantly mistranslating facts to fit his own narrative on the world.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:06:22 PM by Midgetsnowman

Maybe he's just a Democrat because the Democrats basically match up with his view of how our politicians should behave. As his actions and generally... uh, 'goodness', I guess, speak to him having a good character. The general behavior of Wall Street lately... has not been great.

Doomsday, citation needed on the "Conservatives give more to Charity that liberals" claim.

A lot of the "gives more to charity" statistics should be considered while keeping in mind the nature of tax reductions, particularly for wealthy donors, and the fact that a lot of "not-for-profit" charities are fairly big moneymakers with well-paid executive boards.

As for Buffett, his character as a rich individual has nothing to do with his political leanings. I don't like Buffett over Romney because Buffett's liberal and Romney's conservative, but because Buffett made his fortune by increasing the economic opportunities available to others while Romney made his fortune by destroying those opportunities.

Well, Buffett, as a person, seems to want to use his remaining time to insure that he will leave behind a large surplus of cash to be used for the next generation's benefit.

Not something that can be said for all Political Parties (Democrat/Republican/whatever).

Been a long time since I heard of a Party making sure to leave behind a lot of surplus cash instead of debts.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:15:45 PM by Natasel

I'd also point out, that one reason it seems a lot of conservatives donate money, is because last I checked, giving money to your church counts as charity.

The Conservative party includes several political groups that basically donate to their churches nonstop.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:15:57 PM by Midgetsnowman

Have to barf at Buffet being called "good", and his "goodness" being fawned over, just because he's a rich liberal, a group I've always found to be rich (no pun intended) with corruption and hypocrisy.. Is a rich person good just for being a wealthy liberal, and bad just for being unapologetic about it? Ever heard of a Villain with Good Publicity? He kisses your ass so you'll like him. He's a hypocrite, and I can't stand hypocrisy.

Rush Limbaugh doesn't bash non-white anglo saxon protestants. You want anti-Catholicism? Don't look at him, look at their churches being forced to fund birth control. You know who's Catholic? Santorum and Gingrich. Is Santorum the "token" Catholic, because he seems a lot more unapologetic about it than Nancy Pelosi. A lot of people on the right. And it's silly to say he bashes non-whites, non-anglos, or non-protestants, 'cause it's not true. It's like saying Warren Buffet beats his wife.

Buffet makes being a rich person who rails against other rich people a niche, y'see?

edited 13th Feb '12 9:29:51 PM by doomsday524

By the same token, is Rush Limbaugh a good person just because he donates to lymphoma patients? despite the fact half the time his radio show and books are pretty much nothing but fury and hatred spewed at everything that isnt a white anglo saxon protestant?

Buffet's considered a good person because he does a lot of good work and is humble and generally inoffensive and doesnt believe his wealth makes him a better human being for it.

Liberals dont hate rich people. We hate when people openly flaunt the fact that they dont give a horseshit about you unless they can use you to get another percent added to their wealth gained per year.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:21:03 PM by Midgetsnowman

Doomsday, how is he a hypocrite?

I'm inclined to think you're trolling at this point. Could you point to something as proof that he is in anyway acting like a hypocrite? You're the one making the argument, so the burden is on you to prove your point.

Also, a good man is made good by his actions. Buffet has generally acted in a good, constructive manner. And not been a massive dick like the Koch brothers.

Not a dick=Liberal Dick=Conservative

Basically. I get the terminology. Rich people are evil unless they're "compassionate" Democrats.

Bashing rich people who worked hard for their money, while being rich himself. Yeah, that's Straw Hypocrite territory.

Here you go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6ng4nRW59k

edited 13th Feb '12 9:28:38 PM by doomsday524

Right. You go on believing that.

~shrug~

You said it, not me.

Citing Glenn Beck, nice. That really makes the case that you are a rational human being. Also, he's not bashing rich people for making money, hes bashing them for only using that money to help themselves, rather than society.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:30:58 PM by setnakhte

Pointing out the partisan hypocrisy. Just because a rich person poses with Democrats, you think that makes them a better person? There's a lot of rich liberal Hollywood celebrities. Limousine liberals are funny, I think.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:31:47 PM by doomsday524

No, not in particular.

Then again, nobody here, to my knowledge, has postulated such.

No, we think he's a better person because he believes the rich have a debt to the society that made them such.

No. We think he's a better person because his business model is to strengthen companies by investing in them, promoting long term economic growth, and then funneling most of his money back into Charity. He could be republican and I'd still like him for that.

We think people like Romney are scum because they borrow money they never had, buy out companies that are weak, set them up to fail, then buy insurance against the company failing.

And dude. Most of the "liberals" on this board absolutely despise Hollywood. The MPAA is the sworn enemy of the internet, after all.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:33:36 PM by Midgetsnowman

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/04/i-do-not-think-that-word-means-what-you-think-it-means-hypocrisy-edition/

AND put his money where his mouth is.

• damn this thread is going hot and fast, its lika post a minute*

edited 13th Feb '12 9:35:01 PM by Natasel

I believe he's a better person than the conservatives because he's behaved better and earned such an opinion. Instead of being a selfish, obstructionist dick. Like the Koch brothers, who pretty much just set up organizations to fuel their own political interests and ensure their fortunes at the cost of others.

LOL, rape and violence at OWS. Are you like, an actual human being, or, like, some form of proto-AI designed to spew out right-wing talking points?

e: I am apparently some form of proto-AI designed to spew out punctuation mistakes.

edited 13th Feb '12 9:35:45 PM by setnakhte

Edited by a mod:

Instead of calling people trolls, Holler at them and we'll deal with it. If the person you're accusing of trolling really is a troll, your calling them out is fuel for them.

edited 14th Feb '12 8:47:53 AM by BestOf