I could show you contrary citations and easily disprove your generalizations, but that's not the point. The point is that your statement was stupid and hypocritical.
How is it hypocritical? He suggested he knows what we think that is completely contrary to what we say, while I gave statements that can be backed up by data which I included anecdotal evidence of, and can give you significant evidence to back it up. His statement can't possibly be backed up with anything.
I'd love to see your evidence of liberals giving more to charity. And if you have evidence of them not wanting higher taxes that'd be great news.
You told two ill-defined groups what they believe while lamenting people telling you what your group believes. I don't know what to say if you don't see the hypocrisy in that.
That would be hypocritical but that's not what I did. Liberals and conservatives aren't ill defined at all, and its hardly a secret to say liberals are in favor of higher taxes. It's not even an insult. It's just a fact. It's a plank in the platform. It's just the way it is.
It's not "just a fact." It's an (as of yet) unsupported assertion. Liberal is an inclination, not a party. There is no platform. Unless you're talking about a party that calls itself Liberal, which would mean you need to be clearer when making sweeping generalizations.
I am a liberal-minded person. I don't want taxes any more than I want gas in my car's tank, but neither can be avoided under the present system. I would consider supporting a way to maintain civilization in a fair and equitable way (rough definition of liberal) that doesn't need taxes, should someone propose such a thing.
You're being awfully pedantic. Liberals in the United States generally identify with the Democratic party, and they generally favor more taxes and more government. Conservatives in this country generally identify with the Republican party, they generally favor less taxes and less government.
If you want to use a different definition of liberal and call yourself liberal but actually favor less taxes and less government I guess you can do that, but you would be the one using an ill-defined term.
We shouldn't have to rely on the kindness of a few strangers, and be beholden to them. Making the poor rely on charity, and not government, does just that.
Government programs like welfare and public schools are much more effective at helping the poor than "charity." If you think they're run badly, you must know a lot about the inner workings of these programs, and I suggest applying for a job with the government and fix them up.