Real World

Anyone remember that study done in '06 about how lefties don't give nearly as much cash to charity as righties? I do.

Anyhow, about Edwards.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Patters

The study was very flawed. One of the problems is that secularists, often liberal, give to political candidates and causes, which are not considered charities, while conservatives give to churches, which are considered charities, even though a good amount of that money goes towards building new churches and investing in activities that aren't particularly charitable. Another problem is that one study compared blood donations. Well, gays, who are often liberal, are not allowed to give blood because of fear of transmitting AIDS. Another study compared who gave more to Salvation Army plates: San Francisco v. Sioux Falls. Sioux Falls won, but most liberals don't give to Salvation Army because it's homophobic and quite conservatives in most respects. The other problem with the study was that it failed to take into account disposable income. For instance, a lower middle income person living in Boston has less money to give to charity than if the same person lived in rural Mississippi. There is a study that attempted to factor in cost of living, which showed that on a relative basis people give the same amount, regardless of religious or political affiliation.

Harry Boy

The New Democrats are always bellyaching squealing and babbling about the "Rich Republicans" and all their "Oil Money" when they have quite a few of these money people of their own, and speaking of "oil money" in the Kennedy case it's "booze money", Old Joe was a well dressed high class "Boot Legger" no better than Al Capone, Capone killed with guns and baseball bats old Joe Kennedy had people jumping out of windows with his Ruthless Cruel buisness deals, while I'm at it, he gave his wife Rose a screwing too, he made her look like a fool with his Hollywood Whores all of her married life, everybody was laughing at her behind her back, he taught his sons well they were just like him, then they to passed it on their sons.

Imagine the horror of having your daughter bring home "A Kennedy".

__________________
Harry Boy (Genius)

In The Absence Of Law And Order Society Will Surely Destroy Itself

wistahpatsfan

My point is that no group is better than the other. Liberals are no better than conservatives. Talk is cheap. When a conservative backs a traitor who raises taxes and spends like a drunken sailor, he is no more "conservative" than Ghandi.

Real World

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..............

Don't they screen blood that donated?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Real World

I would totally agree. The problem is too many in this country support party over principle.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897

Fogbuster

Where'd you learn that swing?? Guess some people are just born with it: Teddy Ballgame, the Babe, Hammerin' Hank. Barry Bond.... ooops, that's right, he got his in a jar.

//

Fogbuster

....................................


(but you're not like Bonds, Harry)

Patters

Edwards, Kerry, Kennedy, and Pelosi all support a progressive tax system to try to make our system more equitable. That said, there's no reason for the liberals not to take advantage of the rules as they are. They're not monks.

I don't think the conservatives have a plan for that. Liberals are much more focused when it comes to creating equal opportunities, whether by enacting civil rights legislation, providing health care to all, funding education, etc. I'm not saying the liberal plan is perfect, but at least it's a plan. Conservatives say vaguely that people should have better values, be harder working, be better parents, and so on -- those are nice ideas, but how do you get there?

I absolutely agree with that, but even with those blind spots we can still make progress in the most obvious areas, such as health care for poor kids, better education, and more job opportunities.

Fogbuster

The problem with people who want to make changes that require others to sacrifice is that the people *are* going to be looking for "monks", or at least people with a *demonstrated* track record of accomplishment of self-
sacrifice, doing good things for others, doing things that starts from giving something of one's self.

Traditionally, this was often the case of "noblesse oblige" which then filtered out to the general population. Even if some could not live up the ideal they at least held the ethic in high esteem. The spotlight on those seeking the highest goes with the territory. All aspects of our life must be seen through the lens of how it impacts others.

Helping others less fortunate is the great ethic of Christianity and all faiths that are connected to the hereafter. We need to be absolutely consistent with that world. If we are not there are very serious repercussions, issues that may many thousands of years to correct. Food and housing are important, but the quality of our heart is what remains after the physical body turns to dust. Our heart is who we really are, the other physical stuff is only like clothes we wear. We weren't born with them, and we won't need them anymore when we die.