Well read the letter box. It clearly says that Holder believes Paul asked an ADDITIONAL question. He wasn't clarifying anything, he knows he didn't absolutely answer the question posed in the Senate hearing. If he thought he answered the question during the hearing, he would have reiterated his answer in the letter. He didn't need Factcheck to spin it for him.
Sen. Rand Paul said not to expect an announcement about a possible 2016 presidential bid until next year.
Said Paul: "I want to be part of the national debate. I think the country faces a lot of problems, and I do want to be a part of trying to bring about answers and solutions for making the Republican party big enough that we can be competitive again, but I won't make any decision until 2014 or so."
Just like his dad... Rand is just your typical Republican.
If 'libertarianism is so great, why do all the Libertarians run from it?
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Sen. Rand Paul said not to expect an announcement about a possible 2016 presidential bid until next year.
Said Paul: "I want to be part of the national debate. I think the country faces a lot of problems, and I do want to be a part of trying to bring about answers and solutions for making the Republican party big enough that we can be competitive again, but I won't make any decision until 2014 or so."
Just like his dad... Rand is just your typical Republican.
If 'libertarianism is so great, why do all the Libertarians run from it?
because humans are too 'clan-ish'....gotta have a TEAM....it's all for the collective fu(king team, regardless of party dem or rep....
libertarians have to function in the old titles/names....usurping the republican party can be a goal....or maybe hacking the dem party....
humans tend to seek labels and validation, hence the 'your guys' 'my guys' conversation on the political grid iron
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Damn! It's amazing how flexible some Republicans can get on policy when they leave their moral values benind and run for US president! (It's called 'pandering to the base')
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Damn! It's amazing how flexible some Republicans can get on policy when they leave their moral values benind and run for US president! (It's called 'pandering to the base')
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When Rand Paul ran for Senate as a Tea Partier in 2010, he made a point of telling Kentucky Republicans he wasn’t a libertarian like his dad. Once elected, Paul proved it. He voted to impose economic sanctions on Iran—a red flag for libertarians, who don’t believe the U.S. should intervene in foreign affairs—and he opposed a pot legalization bill that then-congressman Ron Paul sponsored in the House.
Bloomberg Businessweek
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ummm he didn't give one example on how libertarians were selfish By the way studies have shown that liberals were the least likely to give to charity then any other political group, why is that box, maybe because they expect others to do it for them. Why is it everything liberals support has to be funded by others money, if anything it is the liberals who are always me me me not libertarians. This has to be the worst fail I ever seen by box and Maher and that is saying a lot.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a new study on charitable giving released today by the Chronicle of Philanthropy:
Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That’s the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious. Importantly, nine of the ten least generous states voted for Obama in 2008.
This new study is consistent with previous research. Sociologists Mark D. Regnerus and David Sikkink looked at the data gathered by the Religious Identity and Influence Survey and concluded that the more religious a person is, the more likely he is to give to the poor; those who are nonreligious give the least. In his book Who Really Cares, Arthur C. Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, examined this issue in depth. He concluded that “Religious people are far more charitable than nonreligious people.” Similarly, in their book American Grace, David Campbell of Notre Dame and Robert Putnam of Harvard found that religious people are more generous than nonreligious people.
It is well known that liberals are far more likely than conservatives to be nonreligious. It is also well known that liberals talk endlessly about poverty. Yet in their daily lives they do the least about it: they volunteer the least; they give less blood; they are less likely to help someone find a job; and they donate the least. Their idea of charity is to have the government raise taxes, i.e., take money from others, and spend it on welfare programs.
The data have grave implications this election season. Paul Ryan is being lectured by liberals—the most miserly people in the nation—for not being responsive to the poor. It doesn’t get more absurd than this. Not until liberals catch up with conservatives in their charitable giving are they in a position to lecture anyone about the poor.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times
Nicholas D. Kristof
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.”
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
(Looking away from politics, there’s evidence that one of the most generous groups in America is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.
In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
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.
So, you’ve guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn’t on the top of anyone’s agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
libertarians are so selfish that Mahar is starving to death.....he rubs elbows with the same crowd that pretends to be the great givers.....he should STFU
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
LOL! Hey box, does your benevolence stop at the waters edge or do you support a world tax so you won't feel "selfish"? It's you statist that are selfish, you believe in plundering private property here at home and instituting trade sanctions on foreign nations(like Iraq) that plunge a nation into poverty all in the name of the ole Red White and Blue. Yeah, collective greed is so much more noble.
BTW...Paul Ryan isn't a libertarian. Who cares if he cites Ayn Rand while politically pandering?
I don't know anybody that take a more libertarian philosophy ever citing Ayn Rand as the reason why. Usually it's the reality of excessive taxation and the criminalization of EVERYTHING that persuaded them. And for the hardcores that study the philosophy, in most cases it's Murray Rothbard.
Logged
By the way studies have shown that liberals were the least likely to give to charity then any other political group, why is that box, maybe because they expect others to do it for them. Why is it everything liberals support has to be funded by others money, if anything it is the liberals who are always me me me not libertarians. This has to be the worst fail I ever seen by box and Maher and that is saying a lot.
