>durr libruls won't do charity themselves they want the state to do it
How come serving food counts as charity? Those poor people could fill their own plates if you just lay down the food and spoons too.
>>56816374
>implying PR stunts represent reality
>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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html?_r=0
>>56816374
Even Obama looks down upon niggers, just look at the disdain on his face.
>>56816584
If they didnt serve them, the food would be stolen.
>>56816779
He looking down to focus on where he is pouring the gravy.
Kekservatives are gonna be mad when based bernie gets in.
>>56816374
Holy shit his daughter is tall thats not hot at all.
>>56816584
Niggers would take large portions or rob the place.
>They're all black
As expected.
>>56816374
>all niggers
no surprise there
Liberals view charity as a responsibility of the society (which is why they favor things like welfare). Consequently they give less to charity as individuals,
Conservatives are the exact opposite; they see charity as a responsibility of individuals first and foremost, and should therefore be voluntary.
https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/
There's some merit to both viewpoints.
>all these homeless people that look better off then me
>>56816374
All I see is a paid state employee.
>SUCKING THE DICK OF GOVERNMENT AND BEING CODDLED BY IT
NIGGERS ARE FUCKING CHILDREN. IF YOU RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT FOR ANYTHING YOU SHOULD BE SHOT. LITERALLY SLAVE-TIER.
>>56816983
No there isn't. You can't be charitable with someone else's money.
>>56816374
these 'homeless' niggers have better clothes than I do
>>56817027
Then we all should be shot since we all rely on the government.
None of the people were poor or homeless, they just went because it was free.
>>56816374
>bunch of white people serving poor ol' niggers
Kek, imagine the jealously and self-loathing
>>56816374
>poor niggers have to have food served to them or they'll steal it all and trade it for crack
Hehehe.
>serving food is charity
worst politician photo op
>>56816584
It's for portion control. They'd take too much because they're selfish unthoughtful people who always take but never give.
Even half-white people have white guilt
>>56816864
>UK flag
>This concerned with foreign affairs
Its true btw Obama hates blacks and I don't blame him. He isn't black himself you know, hes African-American by definition, because he can trace his roots back to Kenya.
>all those people that didn't take a swing at mr uh
Who do you think paid for it?
>Obama
>doing anything for white people
>doing anything without spending lots of tax money
You get all three.
>>56816374
1) Who paid for all the food and the event?
Government? Christian church? Or paid by liberal charities?
2) Just because he's ladeling food doesn't mean shit, presidents probably do that EVERY YEAR. Many don't want/need PR to have a photo op when they do it.
3) He could probably feed way more people if he opened his wallets by donating his entire salary. He fucking makes a killing at fundraising dinners. Let's not forget all the lobby money and book deals etc.
4) His laws like Obamacare created MORE homeless people and poverty than ever. More and more cannot find jobs because of his forced job regulations. He's all but banned full time jobs for Americans with his 50 employee healthcare exemption for businesses. So people can only find shitty part time jobs thanks to this retard. But oh look he is spending a few minutes ladeling food, such a great man. Fuck off.
>>56816864
If Bernie does get in all americans will have get used to waiting in line to get served food from the state. If Comrade Corbyn gets elected you will also have to get your bubble and squeak and eel pie from the govt.
>>56817059
It works in small, tight-knit communities like church groups and villages. Communal sharing actually does work on some level. That's where the liberal mindset generally comes from.
>>56816374
Damn Oboongo got old af
wow i used to think obama was a bad guy but after seeing this photo?
i think hes a great guy
and his whole family too
happy thanksgiving obamas :3
>>56817790
Nevermind I found it here:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/politics/thanksgiving-obama-homeless-veterans/
>Obama was in charge of serving turkey and gravy to the veterans and other homeless people, while first lady Michelle Obama served up vegetables. Daughters Sasha and Malia gave out other holiday favorites including mashed potatoes, stuffing and cranberries.
>Friendship Place Homeless Center received a $3.1 million dollar grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2015 for veteran homelessness capacity-building.
Oh yes, the government funded that dinner.
>liberals doing charity
my ass.
>>56817882
I don't see how the liberal mindset originated from small communities when the majority of them nowadays hail from cities and the suburbs.
>>56816374
So if the liberals are doing it themselves, then why does the state need to? Not understanding your point here.
>>56816584
The volunteers are there to ration the food so the nigglets don't steal too much for themselves.
>>56817882
And those examples are based on volunteerism. If the central organization had"others people's money" contributed without threat of coercion, it is a charitable organization. Government is not a charitable organization. You can't say there are two different methods of being charitable when one method operates through an institution that precludes individuals being charitable.
It isn't even a matter of scale. Whether you have an organization the size of the Government saying "give up money in order to help the community.. or else" or you have a small gang of 'youths' insisting you "give up money in order to help the community... or else", the product is the same and it isn't charity.
>>56817882
Sharing works everywhere that it is sharing.
As soon as it becomes parasitism it starts to fall apart.
>>56816374
>Implying he isn't getting some of our tax dollars
>Implying the free market couldn't have someone do it for less
>>56818176
In an evolutionary sense, we've spent the vast majority of our history as a species living in small bands and tribes.
>>56818332
>>56818445
I'm a fiscal conservative, I was just explaining the liberal mindset. I generally think they're misguided.
>>56816374
Its not charity when you're feeding your own family
>>56817882
It doesn't even work there, just look at the settlers of Roanoke. Bunch of dindu nuffins and almost starved till death till they got fed up and started fending for themselves. Besides you know how many little shitty communes have popped up throughout history? Almost 99% of the time they collapse due to people not being invested in the well being of their community. Because they see it as a separate entity and not vital to their own success
>>56816374
>totally not for a photoshoot
nice try
>>56818723
>I'm a fiscal conservative, I was just explaining the liberal mindset. I generally think they're misguided.
I figured, I'm just continuing the thought, because I don't feel it appropriate to leave a comparison like that open as if the liberal 'option' is even an option at all.
>>56818723
Small tribes require teamwork and a group effort. Larger civilisations allow for frivolous specialisation. That's where liberalism comes from not the sweat of a hunting band, but from "professional" effeminate musicians, artists, writers
>>56818844
Communes can succeed if they're religious in nature, have a strict code of conduct (and strong punishment to deter deviance and social parasitism) and don't grow too large in size. Tribes that function as essentially a large extended family are the norm throughout human existence. Not quite communism but not every-man-for-himself either.
>>56819714
No disagreement there.
People are actually less likely give to charity in a highly unequal society, even if they can afford it.
Reminds of Paul Ryan
>>56816374 (You)
here's your bait reply
