Originally Posted by catmandoo62

well it sure beats the hell out of what oblama gave and bidens the cheapest sum***** on the planet.

Originally Posted by Killer

Don't forget Bill & Hillary Clinton writing off their used underwear as a charitable contributions, and I don't have the data right now but Al & Tipper Gore would give Joe & Jill Biden a very good run for who was the least charitable!

Originally Posted by David Wilson

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Are conservatives more charitable than liberals?

Is this a giver/taker thing?

Originally Posted by Killer

Well first off I never said that both candidates have flip flopped! You're saying I did but there is no basis in fact to support that.

You attempted to raise a question as to whether potential Romney supports should be concerned about what you have characterised as inconsistent positions. You do so in a manner that seeks to define the willingness(good) or unwillingness(bad) of those potential supporters to agree with your premise.

By my post I simply pointed out that Obama supporters face the somewhat similar but not identical same dilemma, yet you've elected to not mention that comparable circumstance. You make no attempt to examine or question the willingness or unwillingness of Obama supporters to be concerned about not simply the percieved inconsistancies of talked about policy positions (the case with Romney) but in the case of Obama it is inconsistances with his actual policy implimentations. Obama has actually done different than what he has stated, where as Romney has as of yet only stated he would or wouldn't do something and also in the perception of some stated the opposite.

Romney as talked inconsistantly and Obama has acted inconsistantly and you seek to make an issue about what Romney is saying and if his potential supporters give that the import you feel it should have for them. All the while you ignore the inconsistancy of Obama's actions and raise no question or concern about whether potential Obama supporters give the similar import and you have elected not express, imply, or question if they should.

Your construct of an equivilancy between Romney flip-flops and Obama flip-flops depends entirely on your ommitting the fact that Romney has engaged in flip flop talk and Obama has engaged in flip flop action.

To respond to your second question. I'm of the opinion that potenial supporters probably evaluate the import along two basis lines, the overall degree of importantance a particular "inconstitancy" should have i.e., big important issue vs. little insignificant issue. Then a second line of evaluation would be the direction that any "inconsistancy" appears to signal, i.e. a newly conflicting position that trends towards conservative positions may engender support from potential Romney supporters who view that as a "coming around to us" signal, likewise supporters on some other tangent of the same spectrum might view it as "going to far astray".

It does seem rather interesting that when it has become almost universally understood and accepted that politicians of any stripe are amorphous in their stated positions dependent on many factors you would seek to hold your idelogical adversaries to a standard you have not held you fellow travelers to, prima facia evidence of partisan intent I would argue. But you may disagree! The excersise on it's face seems to me to be rather sophomoric.

Originally Posted by David Wilson

I'm seeing a pattern here.

Are conservatives more charitable than liberals?

Is this a giver/taker thing?

Originally Posted by elchivito

Here we go. It's all true unless you can prove it isn't. And then, even if you can, I won't read it.

Originally Posted by Botnst

Bias criticism is easy when you're not the moderator, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Botnst

Bias criticism is easy when you're not the moderator, isn't it?

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

We have had this discussion before.

Liberals are charitable when using other peoples' money. They will tax you, and give that money away in a heartbeat.
Liberals are misers when spending their own money. Their charitable giving is low. When they hire work to be done at their homes, do you think they pay union workers, or hire cheap non-union labor?
In fact liberal hypocrisy is of a different nature than conservative hypocrisy. Conservatives are hypocrites when they fail to live up to their professed moral code. Many have failed--Newt, Rush, etc--but they would all admit that their hypocrisy was hurtful to themselves.
Liberal hypocrites, in the other hand, violate the principles they espouse for others to their personal benefit.
Michael Moore while bashing Wall Street was invested there.
Noam Chomsky while bashing the Pentagon was paid by----the US Pentagon! And while bashing capitalism, invested heavily in stocks and amassed quite a fortune--setting an example for the young students who actually believed what he said, and not what he did.
Other examples abound, but the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative hypocrites is that the liberals want to impose rules and laws on the rest of society and then live above those rules. They want you to be sacrificial while they live the rich and famous lifestyle.

Originally Posted by Jorn

How do you know all this stuff, liberal friends?

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

We have had this discussion before.

Liberals are charitable when using other peoples' money. They will tax you, and give that money away in a heartbeat.
Liberals are misers when spending their own money. Their charitable giving is low. When they hire work to be done at their homes, do you think they pay union workers, or hire cheap non-union labor?
In fact liberal hypocrisy is of a different nature than conservative hypocrisy. Conservatives are hypocrites when they fail to live up to their professed moral code. Many have failed--Newt, Rush, etc--but they would all admit that their hypocrisy was hurtful to themselves.
Liberal hypocrites, in the other hand, violate the principles they espouse for others to their personal benefit.
Michael Moore while bashing Wall Street was invested there.
Noam Chomsky while bashing the Pentagon was paid by----the US Pentagon! And while bashing capitalism, invested heavily in stocks and amassed quite a fortune--setting an example for the young students who actually believed what he said, and not what he did.
Other examples abound, but the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative hypocrites is that the liberals want to impose rules and laws on the rest of society and then live above those rules. They want you to be sacrificial while they live the rich and famous lifestyle.

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

Other examples abound, but the fundamental difference between Liberal and Conservative hypocrites is that the liberals want to impose rules and laws on the rest of society and then live above those rules.

Originally Posted by elchivito

Yeah, like those liberals who proposed the trans-vaginal ultrasound laws.