OT: Election/Politics thread, Part 6

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 4:44 pm

bdoughty wrote:Bleeding Heart Tightwads

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini ... .html?_r=1

Some interesting tidbits from the column, which was written by a liberal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

------------------------------------------------

Once again, "do as I say, not as I do."

Op-ed piece and the study sounds like a junk science. But then again probably something junk minds can believe in.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:24 pm

Ignore it Brent,it only gets worse if ya don't.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 5:29 pm

JackDog wrote:

Ignore it Brent,it only gets worse if ya don't.

Must resist replying to that...

I also have to disagree with the author on money spent toward church donations. It is not like it all goes to building a larger place of religious worship.

I have donated money and time to the local Catholic Family Services (and I am not even catholic). Money that goes to numerous thing to help out the community and those in need.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:00 pm

It's an op-ed piece trying trying to prove why conservatives are better.

If you believe or fail to grasp what the author is really trying to do, then you have a junk mind. It would be no different that a link to dailykos why liberals do something better.

If you give to charity that's all the matters. If you try to say that your beliefs are better because your political opposite doesn't give, than you are a petty individual lost in the true spirit of giving.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:24 pm

JackDog wrote:

Ignore it Brent,it only gets worse if ya don't.

I did. Yet it still got worse. Something is broken. Someone find a flux capacitor, stat.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:30 pm

bdoughty wrote:
JackDog wrote:

Ignore it Brent,it only gets worse if ya don't.

I did. Yet it still got worse. Something is broken. Someone find a flux capacitor, stat.

Did I read the column, right? The guy that wrote is a liberal correct?

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:32 pm

JackDog wrote:
Did I read the column, right? The guy that wrote is a liberal correct?

I think I have spotted the malfunction and have highlighted it in bold, in your previous reply.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:39 pm

bdoughty wrote:
JackDog wrote:
Did I read the column, right? The guy that wrote is a liberal correct?
I think I have spotted the malfunction and have highlighted it in bold, in your previous reply.

Merry Christmas!!!

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:44 pm

Now if only we could get a definition from Jrod, on what exactly a "junk mind" is. That would be swell. I do not mind being called names, I just prefer to fully understand what the name I am being call is exactly. I am silly that way.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:00 pm

bdoughty wrote:Now if only we could get a definition from Jrod, on what exactly a "junk mind" is. That would be swell. I do not mind being called names, I just prefer to fully understand what the name I am being call is exactly. I am silly that way.

Didn't Jim Carrey do a movie called "Junk Mind"?

fsquid · Post by **fsquid** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:49 pm

Junk mind is what would have happened if Jackdog would have stayed around that Lake Como for 5 minutes more.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 7:58 pm

fsquid wrote:Junk mind is what would have happened if Jackdog would have stayed around that Lake Como for 5 minutes more.

By the way,I got many shots for that adventure.

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:11 pm

I'm curious (and maybe a bit nervous) as to whose junk BD has on his mind. Maybe this has some connection to the "post your pic" thread.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:12 pm

matthewk wrote:I'm curious (and maybe a bit nervous) as to whose junk BD has on his mind. Maybe this has some connection to the "post your pic" thread.

XXXIV · Post by **XXXIV** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 9:13 pm

JackDog wrote:
matthewk wrote:I'm curious (and maybe a bit nervous) as to whose junk BD has on his mind. Maybe this has some connection to the "post your pic" thread.

Nicely played

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:06 pm

matthewk wrote:I'm curious (and maybe a bit nervous) as to whose junk BD has on his mind. Maybe this has some connection to the "post your pic" thread.

Nah I prefer my junk, firmly planted in the trunk.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:32 pm

Ah, the Peugeot 206: Now that was a rally car.

Nice ass, too.

Take care,
PK

Post by **Jared** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:32 am

On the charity article, google Who Really Cares and volokh. There is a good article about the flaws in the statistical methods in the book where the stats in the op-ed are taken. (sorry no link no cut and paste on iphone)

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:29 pm

Two bits of news

Ex Clinton lawyer/aide and Kerry friend, busted for Child Porn

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/23/por ... index.html

and

Bush does not pardon Scooter Libby. I am sure Dick Cheney is growling somewhere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... A&refer=us

matthewk · Post by **matthewk** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:17 pm

The only ones I'm waiting to see pardoned are Compian (sp?) and Ramos, the border agents in jail for doing their job.

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:46 pm

bdoughty wrote:Bush does not pardon Scooter Libby. I am sure Dick Cheney is growling somewhere.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... A&refer=us

That's great news.

Jackdog · Post by **Jackdog** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:20 pm

matthewk wrote:The only ones I'm waiting to see pardoned are Compian (sp?) and Ramos, the border agents in jail for doing their job.

Count me in on this one as well. Sadly,I don't think it's going to happen. Bush has been a huge asshole dealing with these two agents and the charges aginist them. They shouldn't have went to jail in the first place. Really is some mind numbing bullshit.

macsomjrr · Post by **macsomjrr** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:28 am

Jared wrote:On the charity article, google Who Really Cares and volokh. There is a good article about the flaws in the statistical methods in the book where the stats in the op-ed are taken. (sorry no link no cut and paste on iphone)

Kudos to you Jared for trying but alas I don't think BD really cares. All he probably saw was "conservatives good, liberals bad" and decided that was all the backing the article needed. Typical political BS.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:40 pm

macsomjrr wrote:Kudos to you Jared for trying but alas I don't think BD really cares. All he probably saw was "conservatives good, liberals bad" and decided that was all the backing the article needed. Typical political BS.

How you have not been given a timeout from the forum is beyond me and I know about getting forum timeouts.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:06 pm

bdoughty wrote:
macsomjrr wrote:Kudos to you Jared for trying but alas I don't think BD really cares. All he probably saw was "conservatives good, liberals bad" and decided that was all the backing the article needed. Typical political BS.

How you have not been given a timeout from the forum is beyond me and I know about getting forum timeouts.

Maybe you should get another one.