Al Gore is a cheapskate. That’s not my opinion, it’s a fact borne out by his tax returns. He’s a rich tobacco farmer who gives virtually NO money to charity.
Question: why are liberals not up in arms at this man’s “lack of compassion” for the poor?
Yes, I’m being harsh and provocative, but I’m trying to raise a larger issue. Al Gore won’t give a dime of his OWN money to help the poor, but is widely regarded as a “compassionate” politician because… (drum roll) he’s not only willing but EAGER to spend YOUR money on programs to help the poor!
Well that’s it. If we can’t trust our politicians, then surely the whole nation is going to hell in a handbasket. Who would have thought we would ever have disingenuous leaders? I’m outraged.
“I should not take bribes and Minister Bal Bahadur KC should not do so either. But if clerks take a bribe of Rs 50-60 after a hard day’s work, it is not an issue.” ----Krishna Prasad Bhattarai, Current Prime Minister of Nepal
I can only speak for one liberal, myself, and I wasn’t up in arms because I didn’t know about it.
Consider me disappointed but not very surprised.
You wouldn’t have a link to a site that displays the candidates’ tax returns, would you?
Nonetheless, this won’t likely affect my vote much in November. If it’s Gore v. Dubya, the hypocrisy of Gore not putting his money where he says his heart is, is matched by that of the ‘compassionate conservative’ Governor of Texas, who gave the richest Texans a big tax cut, rather than, say, doing something about hunger in Texas (several studies have put Texas at or near the top of the list of states in terms of people going hungry) or providing money to implement kindergarten in the Texas public schools.
It’s great that he’s compassionate, but I’ve yet to figure out how that would translate into any sort of governemental policy. And if it means, ‘I feel your pain, but I’m not going to do anything about it,’ then running on that label seems pretty hypocritical to me, right up there with his trying to get people to vote for him because he’s such a sincere Christian.
Anyway, many politicians are hypocrites. The choices between them can still be meaningful, and usually are.
My friends say I should act my age, what’s my age again? - Blink 182
In this case, actually, my point was not so much that Al Gore is a hypocrite (lots of politicians are, no matter what their political persuasions- nothing new about that). I simply wonder if we the people are hypocrites.
I could give examples based on many issues. As I said, AL Gore’s tax returns show he gives virtually nothing to charity- but liberals see him as “compassionate” because he gladly spends tax dollars on pet liberal programs. Similarly, guys like Dan Quayle and (apparently) George W. Bush made every effort to avoid military service in Viet Nam- but many top military guys endorsed them.
Point is… MOST of us seem very quick to dismiss politicians’ hypocrisy, as long as they vote our way. Is that wrong, or is it just good sense, however cynical?
Look if there werent any poor people then who could i spit on and kick while walking down the street? who could we do drive by paint ball shootings on, dammnit i need poor people to make fun of so i will feel batter about myself.
Batter? What kind of batter? Cake batter? Waffle batter? Or “batter up!” baseball kind of batter?
OJ, you make a mistake in what you are doing. Your posts are SO stupid that people ignore them. In order to be a successful agent provocatuer, your cover must be credible.
Just a friendly suggestion, from the son of a widow.
Astorian, you raise a great issue, which underscores how full of crap the Liberals are. If it’s not NIMBY, it’s we’ll give YOUR money away while we keep ours. I have ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR LIBERALS.
Liberals NEVER want a level playing field, ever.Just look at the Clinton deal, he got a pass on all his misdeeds, voted in again, but if he were a Conservative they would have hung him out to dry.
Now they are still trying to foist that shit on us with Hillary in NY.
You can destroy your now by worrying about tomorrow. Janis Joplin
I’m sorry. I must have missed the part of Astorian’s post where he makes the point that Gore refused to pay his tax bill so that none of his money would be used to fund social programs.
Wow, it sure makes thinking easier when you ignore individuals and rely on blanket characterizations, doesn’t it?
Never?? Perhaps you need to read a little political history before making such LOUD proclamations of ignorance. You may want to investigate things like desegregation, women’s suffrage, religious freedom, etc. Ignorance is nothing to be ashamed of, but neither is it something to shout proudly from the rooftops.
Really? And this is a characteristic of liberalism not of partisan politics? Substitute Reagan for Clinton in the above sentence and tell me where you see the difference.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
BTW. I personally find Gore’s lack of support for personal charity disturbing, but the case for hypocrisy is not clear cut. If a politician argues for ending social welfare and using solely private charity to deal with social issues, then that politician would be hypocritical if he did not give to private charities once his plans were put into effect. We might also be justified in expecting him to give to private charities before his policies were in effect as a sign that his commitment to private charity was strong. If a politician supports higher taxes to fund social welfare programs, though, that politician is entirely consistent philosophically if he chooses to let his tax dollars represent his entire contribution to social causes.
Please note, I am not defending the position morally or ethically. I thik Gore should have been much more generous to charities given his position and income. I simply note that such a position is not antithetical to his political philosophy.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*