Ok, answer me this-

[n2doc]

Why does the Right react with such anger at rich Liberals, yet has no problem with poor Republicans? They always imply that rich Liberals are hypocrites, and yet the same thing applies, even more so, to poor Republicans.

Methinks the pots are calling the kettles black, in this case. No one can out-hypocrite a Republican.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

1. Not Calling The Kettle Black.

One thing I always hated about that cliche is that the user of it always fails to realize that by doing so they are in fact declaring the side they defend as guilty as well. It means both the pot and kettle are black: They both are guilty.

In this case, it is only they who are hypocrites. It's more like the apple calling the orange an apple.

[HardyParkerson]

2. Keep up the good work!

Keep up the good work!

[Suich]

4. Welcome to DU, HardyParkerson!

:bounce: :toast: :bounce: :party: :bounce:

[newyawker99]

6. Hi Hardy Parkerson!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Justice Is Comin]

3. What I find hillarious, although a certification to how bad

our educational highway truly must be is that less than 1% of the country are millionaires. The republicans live and pass legislation only for the millionaires and regressive to almost the entire country of the United States.

So everything the neoncon nut jobs are cheering is devastating to their own interests. Woohoo screw us some more.

Yet the toothless idiots with their truck mounted gunracks, plod on.

[Joe Chi Minh]

5. Their moral turpitude blinds them. It's the same in the UK, where

their perjured "talking heads" call rich liberals, "champagne Socialists".

If any of those knuckle-draggers on the far right were poverty-stricken, and became a beneficiary of the caring, inclusive, Socialist political orientation of a rich individual, do you think he or she would revile the latter for not giving away all his wealth, in order to become another oppressed poverty-stricken soul like him?

How can they be so addled-brained? It seems impossible, doesn't it?

Mark tells us that Jesus looked at the earnest young man, who kept all the commandments, but asked Jesus how to be perfect, and LOVED him". Since he told Jesus that he had kept all the commandments since he was a boy, he must have already been a charitable giver to the needy, as his duty under the second commandment. And it is surely more than a little likely that Jesus would have had a fairly shrewd idea and very possibly knew for certain, even before the rich young man responded, that he wouldn't want to give all his wealth away to the poor and follow him, but he looked at him, we are told, and loved him. He didn't despise him, or scoff at him as a hypocrite.