Who gives to charity? Red States - "...the idea that liberals give more (or care more) is a myth
CB
By John Stossel
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
Americans are pretty generous. Three-quarters of American
families give to charity -- and those who do, give an average of $1,800. Of
course that means one-quarter of us don't give at all. What distinguishes
those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about
that.
To test them, ABC's "20/20" went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San
Francisco. We asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest
locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money? I'll get to
that in a minute.
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important
ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to
church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively
few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and
since liberals are said to "care more" about the poor, you might assume
people in San Francisco would give a lot.
But the idea that liberals give more is a myth. Of the top 25
states where people give an above-average percentage of their income, all
but one (Maryland) were red -- conservative -- states in the last
presidential election.
"When you look at the data," says Syracuse University professor
Arthur Brooks, "it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more.
And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."
Researching his book, "Who Really Cares", Brooks found that the
conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:
"The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give
everything in America. You find that people who believe it's the
government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give
their money away."
Conservatives are even 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
The second myth is that people with the most money are the most
generous. But while the rich give more in total dollars, low-income people
give almost 30 percent more as a share of their income.
Says Brooks: "The most charitable people in America today are
the working poor."
We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat packing
plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more
contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
continued...(http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity?page=2)
--
CB
"If your ship doesn't come in, swim out to it." -Andy Tant
Lib/Dim version: "If your ship doesn't present its self to you, sink
it and blame duh mayhn"
"Learn all you can, but learn to do something, or your learning will
be useless and your vision will depart." -Booker T. Washington
VC John McTraitor
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:9jlm045d4d5c1q2n2...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:57:00 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>king poor."
>>
>> We saw that in Sioux Falls, S.D. The workers at the meat
>> packing
>>plant make about $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more
>>contributions of over $500 from employees there than anywhere else.
>
>
> take care of the indigent are state or locally ran.
>
> In SF there are halfway houses, flop houses, soup
> kitches, dozens of other state/local run organizations
> that rural states simply do not run
>
> Second, the money given to the "kettles" is used for
> different things in Rural states as opposed to huge
> urban areas.
>
> Third, it's a propagandized, bullshit "studY" that has
> no scientific crediblity.
Bush gave $750 to the millions of victims of the Indonesian typhoon awhile
back.
That's like me giving 7 cents.
Larry Hewitt
First, Blue sttes give mor valuable time, red states pay off their
obligatytions with money.
Second, blue states fnud many more charitable functions through tqaxes ---
including fnding Red state needs!
Yep, blue states are ne federal tax exporters, red statess net importers.
Why?
Welfare.
Red states get a far larger percentage of their state distributed welfare
program fnds, in the form of bleck grants, then blue states, and red states
have far larger populations in need.
Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help people
directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted, selfish
people they truly are.
Larry
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
news:480b21f4$0$9534$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
CB
"VC John McTraitor" <mccain's...@vietcong.net> wrote in message
news:CXIOj.2356$I55....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Did you give 7 cents or do you just want credit for the good intention?
CB
--
CB
"Those who do not work should not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10)
(the exception is the infirmed and the dead)
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:fufu3c$5m5$1...@news04.infoave.net...
_Stables@fakeranch.tx Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate
"VC John McTraitor" <mccain's...@vietcong.net> wrote in message
news:CXIOj.2356$I55....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
While twiddling his thumbs as New Orleans suffered.....
_Stables@fakeranch.tx Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate
"Barfa" <C...@PrayForMeToGoToHell.com> puked in message
news:480b21f4$0$9534$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Who gives to charity?
> By John Stossel
> Wednesday, December 6, 2006
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
>
>
>
Barfa.
"In 2000 the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University
released the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, by far the largest
and most extensive study of civic engagement by Americans that has ever been
performed. Comprising data from a total of 27,000 respondents in 41
communities throughout 29 different states, the Survey measured a wide range
of social participation, including charitable giving . and the data show no
significant difference between liberals and conservatives in charitable
activity or donations. "
John Galt
>
> First, Blue sttes give mor valuable time, red states pay off their
> obligatytions with money.
Citation?
>
> Second, blue states fnud many more charitable functions through tqaxes ---
> including fnding Red state needs!
>
> Yep, blue states are ne federal tax exporters, red statess net importers.
>
> Why?
History and Climate. The Northeast was industrialized early, the South
remained agricultural because of better growing weather. When agriculture
started to corporatize in the 60's, it resulted in a lot of displaced
workers. Further, the South had not made the same educational investments as
the North for the same reasons, and is still paying the price for that
situation.
>
> Welfare.
>
> Red states get a far larger percentage of their state distributed welfare
> program fnds, in the form of bleck grants, then blue states, and red
> states have far larger populations in need.
>
> Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help people
> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted,
> selfish people they truly are.
Nice rant. I see your true political objective is to "bring America
together."
Good luck with it.
JG
Randy ®
in article <A7NOj.8977$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>,
"Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate" <Cleanin'_The
_Sta...@fakeranch.tx> wrote:
According to CNN & his income taxes, McCain gave more to
charity than Obama and Clinton combined.
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
bhkj04lnh1eo6sit8...@4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/4bp7nq
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
CB
"Randy ®" <pulpi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:82cn041750ia3g5fe...@4ax.com...
Checkmate on the charity issue
>
> ©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
> bhkj04lnh1eo6sit8...@4ax.com
> http://tinyurl.com/4bp7nq
> --
> Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
> Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
> life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
>
> We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
> up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
> thought to make it obedient to Christ. ?2 Corinthians 10:5
CB
"Jorge W. Arbusto, Prezidentchul Candydate" <Cleanin'_The
news:LdNOj.8982$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
So, you're including politically correct "social participation". That would
include Bell Curve, feel good 'intentions' no doubt.
Another fine example of social engineering in order to make Liberalism look
better than it 'is'
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:66on04lerlr7rc1qm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:55:11 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>> Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help
>>> people
>>> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted,
>>> selfish people they truly are.
>>
>>Nice rant. I see your true political objective is to "bring America
>>together."
>
> as conservatism is controlled and influenced by the
> religious reich as it has been for the last 3 decades.
The GOP is indeed overly influenced by religious parties. Conservatism is a
political philosophy that doesn't change depending on who it's adherents
are.
JG
>
> Lawmakers cannot sustain a condition of enacting law
> solely on a biblical underpinning when dealing with a
> multicultural and polyglot religious body of voters.
>
> The GOP has filibustered a record 70+ times in the last
> year---breaking all records. They predicate their
> objections (mostly) on "moral grounds"--not what's good
> for america.
>
Randy ®
in article <pdon0493bchv1ih91...@4ax.com>,
Nic...@Click.com wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:11:46 -0400, "CB"
><C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So, you're including politically correct "social participation". That would
>>include Bell Curve, feel good 'intentions' no doubt.
>>
>>Another fine example of social engineering in order to make Liberalism look
>>better than it 'is'
>
>Tell us what conservatism EVER did to make America
>prosper, Barta. Use the years 1861-1990.
>
>Make us laugh at you.
It's like Jesse Ventura said. "Poor people have been voting
for democrats for fifty years, and they're still poor."
©2007 pulpitfire.net, pulpitfire.org, pulpitfire.com
bhkj04lnh1eo6sit8...@4ax.com
http://tinyurl.com/4bp7nq
--
Christ died for our sins, and God raised Him from the dead.
Rely on this work alone to escape hell and receive eternal
life (Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-3; Eph. 2:8-10; 2 Thess. 1:8-9).
We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself
up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every
thought to make it obedient to Christ. †2 Corinthians 10:5
CB
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:66on04lerlr7rc1qm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:55:11 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>> people
>>> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted,
>>> selfish people they truly are.
>>
>>Nice rant. I see your true political objective is to "bring America
>>together."
>
> as conservatism is controlled and influenced by the
> religious reich as it has been for the last 3 decades.
>
> solely on a biblical underpinning when dealing with a
> multicultural and polyglot religious body of voters.
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or
gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale
goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious
people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
http://www.probe.org/content/view/17/88/
The evil philosophies of fascism and communism were the two great 20th
century mass killers. Of these, communism was the greatest killer. 100
million men, women and children have been murdered by socialism so far, and
the killing continues today, notably in North Korea. In terms of body count,
Socialism is by far the most evil religion, the most evil ideology of any
sort, of all time.
http://markhumphrys.com/communism.html
>
> The GOP has filibustered a record 70+ times in the last
> year---breaking all records. They predicate their
> objections (mostly) on "moral grounds"--not what's good
> for america.
What's good for America the Left fights like Hell to defeat
--
CB
While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals
always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.
Ann Coulter
>
CB
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:pdon0493bchv1ih91...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:11:46 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>would
>>include Bell Curve, feel good 'intentions' no doubt.
>>
>>Another fine example of social engineering in order to make Liberalism
>>look
>>better than it 'is'
>
> prosper, Barta. Use the years 1861-1990.
>
> Make us laugh at you.
>
Look up what America's first assistant Supreme Court Justice did to abolish
slavery.
HINT: His name is Joseph Story.
He and Abe Lincoln helped to free the slaves from southern (then
Dixiecrats/DemocRATs)
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:pdon0493bchv1ih91...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 19:11:46 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>
>>would
>>include Bell Curve, feel good 'intentions' no doubt.
>>
>>Another fine example of social engineering in order to make Liberalism
>>look
>>better than it 'is'
>
> prosper, Barta. Use the years 1861-1990.
Oh, please.
The entire prosperity of the developed world is the result of free market
economic principles that are fully supported by conservatives. The opposing
political viewpoint, liberal socialism, has never delivered prosperity
anywhere it's been tried, and the when the two ideologies are mixed in
social democratic countries, the result is always higher unemployment, lower
capital formation, lower levels of entrepenurism, and lower GDP growth,
although extended social infrastructures do deliver narrowed rich/poor
divides and one can argue if better on-average qualities of life are also so
delivered.
>
> Make us laugh at you.
After a question like that, who would ever care what an idiot like you
laughs at? I have no doubt that responsible supporters of liberal POV's read
you and think to themselves "Get this moron off our side. He makes us look
bad."
There are a lot of very bright liberals who have good ideas on how to make a
better society without putting the brakes on the economy. You're not one of
them.
JG
CB
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:A1SOj.110885$fB7....@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> <Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
> news:66on04lerlr7rc1qm...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:55:11 -0500, "John Galt"
>> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help
>>>> people
>>>> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted,
>>>> selfish people they truly are.
>>>
>>>Nice rant. I see your true political objective is to "bring America
>>>together."
>>
>> "coming together" of America will NEVER happen as long
>> as conservatism is controlled and influenced by the
>> religious reich as it has been for the last 3 decades.
>
> The GOP is indeed overly influenced by religious parties. Conservatism is
> a political philosophy that doesn't change depending on who it's adherents
> are.
>
> JG
One thing we can count on with Progressives, their so Liberal that in a few
years they'll prove them selves god and take the inalienable rights away
>
>
>>
>> Lawmakers cannot sustain a condition of enacting law
>> solely on a biblical underpinning when dealing with a
>> multicultural and polyglot religious body of voters.
The only people who would object are the immoral who thrive on degeneracy,
right Gay'wee?
>>
>> The GOP has filibustered a record 70+ times in the last
>> year---breaking all records. They predicate their
>> objections (mostly) on "moral grounds"--not what's good
>> for america.
When Progressives are in power we can count on the Gay Mafia pushing creepy
issues onto the public
--
CB
Romans, Chapter 1, verse 21:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise,
they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God
into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
CB
Right On Brother!
--
CB
Hillary Care II
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/hillaryclinton/ig/Hillary-Clinton-Cartoons/Hillarycare-Trojan-Horse.-0S5.htm
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:1idp04leb8fva8bf9...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:23:48 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
>>news:66on04lerlr7rc1qm...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:55:11 -0500, "John Galt"
>>> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help
>>>>> people
>>>>> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted,
>>>>> selfish people they truly are.
>>>>
>>>>Nice rant. I see your true political objective is to "bring America
>>>>together."
>>>
>>> "coming together" of America will NEVER happen as long
>>> as conservatism is controlled and influenced by the
>>> religious reich as it has been for the last 3 decades.
>>
>>The GOP is indeed overly influenced by religious parties. Conservatism is
>>a
>>political philosophy that doesn't change depending on who it's adherents
>>are.
>
> political party adopts it.
>
> Old Southern Conservatives (who refused to refute
> racism) flocked to the GOP and carried their agenda
> into that party platform.
No they didn't.
They grew old, retired, and their successors found more common ground with
the GOP than they did with the Democrats. I have no doubt that a few did so
because they knew that conservativism, although at its core repudiates
racism, adopts more of a "move slow" attitude towards social issues than do
the Democrats.
However, the primary driver was free market economics.
If you want to see real racism (not the piddly little vestiges that pop up
here from time to time) go to Japan. You haven't really lived until you've
been refused service at a restaurant for being "gaijing." (That loosely
translates to "white devil.")
JG
>
> Which explains why the GOP leadership speaks with a
> southern drawl for so many years.
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:68ep04tgb508kue2a...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:43:40 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Tell us what conservatism EVER did to make America
>>> prosper, Barta. Use the years 1861-1990.
>>
>>Oh, please.
>>
>>The entire prosperity of the developed world is the result of free market
>>economic principles that are fully supported by conservatives.
>
That's exactly what I support, and exactly what conservativism supports. If
you're going to argue that the GOP economic positions aren't conservative,
I'm sure there are points on which we'd agree.
> You supported a system whereby government sided with
> the wealth and corporations to literally enslave the
> workers, amass all the wealth, providing NO systematic
> way for anyone other than those classes to survive.
>
> The rise of the middle class came about AFTER the
> wresting of power from conservatives, re-writing
> legislation to regulate those market forces and
> redistribute wealth.
>
>>The opposing
>>political viewpoint, liberal socialism,
>
> More babbling bullshit
....which you clipped because you cannot answer.
>
> ANY dabbling of "socialist" ideas in this nation came
> before, or during, the revamping of our laws to
> accomodate and correct the excesses of unregulated
> wealth and power.
Incorrect. Regulation of free markets isn't socialism prima facie.
I suggest you get your terminology straight before you continue your
"babbling."
JG
> The demise of "socialist" influence came about with
> allowing collective bargaining, regulating business,
> redistribution of wealth, and a systematic set of
> social (not socialist) addresses of problems caused by
> rising immigration, effects of the industrial
> revolution, and expansion of global economies.
>
> It's silly to refer to "social justice" as "socialism"
> when the two concepts have little to do with each
> other.
>
>
>>After a question like that, who would ever care what an idiot like you
>>laughs at?
>
> Because kicking your ignorant ass seems like child's
> play.
>
>>There are a lot of very bright liberals who have good ideas on how to make
>>a
>>better society without putting the brakes on the economy. You're not one
>>of
>>them.
>
> By "putting the brakes on the economy"---you're
> referring to a "hands off business" policy?
>
> Pity you didn't read what happens when that's been done
> before.
>
>>==============================================================
>
>>"Because of Reagan's economic policies---most of which were
>>Solidly endorsed by (a GOP) congress---wealth in the US was being
>>REDISTRIBUTED upward. While the rich got richer in the 1980's
>>poverty deepened for many people. (Under reagan) The United
>>States was polarizing racially and economically and societal
>>divisions were being excerbated by new problems"
>>
>>----A History of the United States; A people and a Nation"
>> 4th Edition
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:i5cq049fg9djp4c7i...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:13:10 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
>>news:68ep04tgb508kue2a...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:43:40 -0500, "John Galt"
>>> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tell us what conservatism EVER did to make America
>>>>> prosper, Barta. Use the years 1861-1990.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, please.
>>>>
>>>>The entire prosperity of the developed world is the result of free
>>>>market
>>>>economic principles that are fully supported by conservatives.
>>>
>>> But that's not what you supported.
>>
>>That's exactly what I support, and exactly what conservativism supports.
>>If
>>you're going to argue that the GOP economic positions aren't conservative,
>>I'm sure there are points on which we'd agree.
>
> discredited "libertarian" crap that almost sunk us a
> couple of generations ago.
Like I said, get your terminology straight. There was nothing "libertarian"
about anything I posted; in fact, I specifically stated that regulations on
the free market were not necessarily "socialist", which is a statement that
would get me kicked out of any libertarian gathering of which I have ever
heard.
What I posted was dead-on accurate, and anyone who knows how to use an
almanac can look up the numbers for themselves.
I don't have time to have six different conversations in one thread with an
individual who seems to be suffering from ADD. Your original statement was
that conservatism did nothing to make America prosper from 1861-1990. As
soon as you were reminded that free market capitalism is embraced by
conservatives and viewed with concern, suspicion, or revulsion by liberals
depending on where you are on the scale, AND that socialism has never
delivered prosperity, AND that social democracies have always delivered
lower levels of GDP growth, entrepeneurism, and employment, which are all
simple statistics that you can look up for yourself, you dove for the carpet
like a drunken sailor at 5 AM and tried to obfuscate your inanity by
babbling on about "greed", as if greedy people are only found in corporate
boardrooms and not in politics or small businesses or anywhere else one can
think of.
Don't waste my time.
JG
>
>>> You supported a system whereby government sided with
>>> the wealth and corporations to literally enslave the
>>> workers, amass all the wealth, providing NO systematic
>>> way for anyone other than those classes to survive.
>>>
>>> The rise of the middle class came about AFTER the
>>> wresting of power from conservatives, re-writing
>>> legislation to regulate those market forces and
>>> redistribute wealth.
>>>
>>>>The opposing
>>>>political viewpoint, liberal socialism,
>>>
>>> More babbling bullshit
>>
>>....which you clipped because you cannot answer.
>
> you cannot refute american history and the wrong policy
> of leaving business alone
>
>>> ANY dabbling of "socialist" ideas in this nation came
>>> before, or during, the revamping of our laws to
>>> accomodate and correct the excesses of unregulated
>>> wealth and power.
>>
>>Incorrect. Regulation of free markets isn't socialism prima facie.
>
> You seem to think so.
>
> The regulation of business is essential for us not to
> fall into the same trap we did 3/4th of a century ago.
>
>
>>I suggest you get your terminology straight before you continue your
>>"babbling."
>
> ========================================================
>
> A typical self-made, conservative "hard working" type:
>
>>Later, there would be boarding school and then Yale, from
>>which he was expelled after a drunken party. He ended up
>>at the University of Pittsburgh, where his father was
>>chairman of the board of trustees. After getting a bachelor's
>>degree in English in 1957, he was put to work first in the
>>Scaife family business and later in Mellon enterprises.
>>Within a few years, both of his parents were dead and Scaife
>>had inherited an enormous fortune whose value is currently
>>estimated by Forbes as about $1 billion (a significant
>>underestimate, according to one reliable source
CB
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:fldp04184f2gm9tnj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 01:54:46 -0400, "CB"
> <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>
>>>> as conservatism is controlled and influenced by the
>>>> religious reich as it has been for the last 3 decades.
>>>
>>> The GOP is indeed overly influenced by religious parties. Conservatism
>>> is
>>> a political philosophy that doesn't change depending on who it's
>>> adherents
>>> are.
>>>
>>> JG
>>
>>One thing we can count on with Progressives, their so Liberal that in a
>>few
>>years they'll prove them selves god and take the inalienable rights away
>
> thing you can always count on progressive doing is
> making America a better place to live instead of the
> rampant racism, homophobic, greed, bigotry , racism and
> sleaze of the present conservative GOP.
>
>>>> Lawmakers cannot sustain a condition of enacting law
>>>> solely on a biblical underpinning when dealing with a
>>>> multicultural and polyglot religious body of voters.
>>
>>The only people who would object are the immoral who thrive on degeneracy,
>>right Gay'wee?
> What in fuck are you babbling about?
>
> Whatever behavior exists today---has always been
> present in human behavior.
>
> Today is no different that any generation throughout
> time. What IS consistent, is the babbling of a bunch
> of sham-religious idiots who claim some authority to
> make judgements on the behavior.
>
> At NO time in history has THEIR bullshit ever been
> heeded---only from time to time allowed to be
> tested---then shit-canned because it's bogus.
>
> The resurgence of religious fundamentalism has surfaced
> several times in American history---it has NEVER
> survived very long---mostly because it's all a sham
> having NO place in public policy.
>
> The GOOD news is----stupid bastards like you are losing
> day by day. The world WILL go on, it will have
> survived an assault on society, and we'll all be better
> off for being rid of racist bastards like you.
Tell it to all the bastard chillin growing up in broken homes. Products of
lust, no fault of their own but having little to no ties to family heritage
or traditions, cities like South LA, Detroit, NYC and San Francisco are
filled with young people who have no family life, no 'big brothers',
bitterness which Obama wants to harness.
>
>>>> The GOP has filibustered a record 70+ times in the last
>>>> year---breaking all records. They predicate their
>>>> objections (mostly) on "moral grounds"--not what's good
>>>> for america.
>>
>>When Progressives are in power we can count on the Gay Mafia pushing
>>creepy
>>issues onto the public
>
> Education, Healthcare, equal opportunity,
> freedom,expandend civil liberties, better air, water,
> environment, infrastructure are "creepy" to you?
Education in America was started by Christian institutions and slowly
monopolized by the state. Today little to no money goes to private schools
(which teach Reading, Writing and Math). Public skoo's suck, private skoo's
pump out leaders
pyjamarama
> <Nick...@Click.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1idp04leb8fva8bf9...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:23:48 -0500, "John Galt"
>
> >><Nick...@Click.com> wrote in message
Actually, if you want to see real racism simply peruse a few of Gary
"Nick@Click" Roselles' usenet rantings...
Gary "Nick@Click" Roselles expresses his deeply felt convictions
towards blacks (Source: Google Archives):
On 18 Feb 2007 14:05:28 -0700 Gary Roselles <C...@Knicklas.com> "Then
why was you mother stupid enough to fuck all them black guys?"
On 23 Aug 2006 04:29:00 -0700, Gary Roselles <C...@KNICKLAS.COM>
wrote: "What the fuck would a dumb cocksucker like (distinguished
black scholar) Sowell, who sits out at Stanford, never having worked a
day in his Uncle Tom life, know anything?"
On Jun 6, 09:33:41, C...@Knicklas.com wrote of distinguished African-
American scholars Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams: "Both are
traitors to their race"
On 24 Apr 2001 17:43:01 GMT Gary Roselles <rosel...@idt.net> wrote (in
reply to an Op-Ed by African-American Rev. Jesse Lee Patterson): 'Say
"yes Massa",Uncle Tom."
On 30 Oct 2006 11:13:21 -0800, Gary Roselles <C...@Knicklas.com>wrote:
"brown niggers need to be taken out"
On 30 Jun 2005 8:51:19 -0800, Gary Roselles <C...@Knicklas.com> wrote:
"They talk in black english"
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:27:54 GMT, Gary Roselles
<rosel...@idt.net>wrote: "Bush's Uncle tom Cabinet is good first step
for GOP"
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:27:54 GMT, Gary Roselles <rosel...@idt.net>
wrote:"You actually think that placing blackskinned, white thinking
people is going to gain anything with real minorities?"
On 2 Jul 2005 10:43:03 -0800, Gary Roselles <C...@Knicklas.com> wrote:
"because of their rap speech"
On 18 Dec 2000 20:26:48 GMT Gary Roselles <rosel...@idt.net> wrote (of
Colin Powell): "It's apparant[sic] he's being an uncle tom to appease
voters."
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 06:43:37 GMT Gary Roselles <rosel...@rapidnet.com>
wrote (of Michael Steele): "GOP Poised to Pick Uncle Tom in MD"
Wayne
"Bill, it's for you."
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:6ktr04lr6hhdoio49...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:47 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>Your original statement was
>>that conservatism did nothing to make America prosper from 1861-1990
>
> make america prosper, help the middle class, or promote
> a better nation---save exhibit an ultranationalistic,
> militaristic pattern of behavior.
Again, you're off on a tangent. Statistics comparing countries is not
"ultranationalism", and I am a proponent of cutting military spending, so I
don't know where the "militaristic" comment comes from.
If you intend to promote a particular social or economic agenda, you have to
be prepared to engage in genuine debate to promote said agendas. The
totality of your argument is "I think conservativism is bad, and if anyone
provides facts to the contrary, I'm prepared to misrepresent their positions
and insult them in response."
You don't debate people, nor do you read what people write -- you debate
stereotypes using preprepared boilerplate. That's your business. Go do it
with someone else.
JG
>
> Domestically, it traditionally views change as bad
> (still does), fought EVERY reform imaginable for
> generations.
>
> Conservatives fought:
>
> Child labor laws, Health care, old age poverty,
> desegregation, integration, womens rights, voting
> rights, civil rights, handicapped and mentally
> enfeebled rights, education, infrastructure, and
> collective bargaining.
>
> You also fought clean air, water, environment,
> regulation of business, corporations and any thing that
> didn't enhance the greed and power of a few elite
> industrialists, coporations and wealthy individuals.
>
> Today, as we speak, the dislike of integration, or
> anything related to the equality and civil rights of
> minorities by conservatives is masked by euphemisms
> like "keeping the government off your back" (a coded
> word for states rights) and "who is better able to
> spend your money" which is a veiled attempt to lessen
> the power of federalism and amass power for
> republicans.
>
> Conservatism sucks---and has been the worst ideology
> that ever disgraced this nation.
>
>>=============================================================================
>
>>Mr Wolfowitz became increasingly agitated and said that he was 'tired of
>>people ... attacking him' and 'you should get your friends to stop it'.
>>Mr Wolfowitz said, 'If they fuck me or Shaha, I have enough on them to
>>fuck them too'," naming several senior bank staff he felt were vulnerable.
John Galt
"pyjamarama" <pyjama...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2222beb8-303d-4f63...@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
None of this surprises me. Obviously a person with a great deal of hatred
for anyone but the tiny (and I mean TINY) few who agree with his viewpoints.
It;s not enough that their opponents are "wrong" -- their opponents must be
EVIL.
Want to see him go off? This ought to do it: "The Bush Cabinet selections
have been the most ethnically and gender diverse in history."
It's an easy fact to verify, but it sends people like this into a tizzy that
the preconceptions and stereotypes that constitute their political security
blanket might not be so.
But, it forces them to take their thumbs out of their mouths, put their
blankets down, and type like madmen, assuming it's not past their bedtime.
JG
John Galt
<Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
news:lcbs04p7juthqd55b...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:59:30 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><Nic...@Click.com> wrote in message
>>news:6ktr04lr6hhdoio49...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:09:47 -0500, "John Galt"
>>> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Your original statement was
>>>>that conservatism did nothing to make America prosper from 1861-1990
>>>
>>> You haven't listed anything that conservatism did to
>>> make america prosper, help the middle class, or promote
>>> a better nation---save exhibit an ultranationalistic,
>>> militaristic pattern of behavior.
>>
>>Again, you're off on a tangent. Statistics comparing countries is not
>>"ultranationalism", and I am a proponent of cutting military spending, so
>>I
>>don't know where the "militaristic" comment comes from.
>
"Those who"? More caricatures and stereotypes.
Geez. Go read a comic book -- and you're one of the characters.
JG
advocate "less government" or "little
> government" accompany that nonsense with a patriotic
> wave of a sword (while thumping a bible) as they
> protect their wealth at the bank.
>
>>If you intend to promote a particular social or economic agenda, you have
>>to
>>be prepared to engage in genuine debate to promote said agendas. The
>>totality of your argument is "I think conservativism is bad, and if anyone
>>provides facts to the contrary, I'm prepared to misrepresent their
>>positions
>>and insult them in response."
>
> I asked you to supply ANY policy that conservatism has
> ideated, or promoted that advanced the America people
> for the last 150 years. (that didn't adversly affect
> the majority of Americans). I said (generally) that
> conservatives opposed nearly 95% of ALL policies since
> the Civil war was fought---then listed a partial list
> of example.
>
>>You don't debate people, nor do you read what people write -- you debate
>>stereotypes using preprepared boilerplate. That's your business. Go do it
>>with someone else.
>
> I gave you a general description of the record of
> conservatism and loonytarianism that have proven
> historically inimical to the American people.
>
> What YOU want is to use logical fallacy argument and
> offer "begged question" examples---then require a
> reader to disprove your claims.
>
> The historical record of conservatism sucks, as does
> the record of the racists, homophobes, bigots,
> neo-cons, and CEO's who promote it.
>
> The federalist Society has inflitrated the entire
> judiciary, CPAC and it's mega-media propaganda mills,
> including at least 3 USSC justices.
>
> ALL are geared to funneling more and more wealth to
> fewer and fewer people, restricting government in it's
> function to "level" society, and set up corporations
> and businesses to the status they once held at the turn
> of the 20th century .
>
> THEY are NOT "liberals"
>
> They are CONSERVATIVES.
Rich Travsky
>
> More Stossel half truths.
>
> First, Blue sttes give mor valuable time, red states pay off their
> obligatytions with money.
>
> Second, blue states fnud many more charitable functions through tqaxes ---
> including fnding Red state needs!
>
> Yep, blue states are ne federal tax exporters, red statess net importers.
>
> Why?
>
> Welfare.
>
> Red states get a far larger percentage of their state distributed welfare
> program fnds, in the form of bleck grants, then blue states, and red states
> have far larger populations in need.
>
> Take away tihing in the red states =--- most of which DOES NOY help people
> directly --- and you see rightards as the parsimoniuos, tightfisted, selfish
> people they truly are.
>
> > Who gives to charity?
> > By John Stossel
> > Wednesday, December 6, 2006
> > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
http://www.taxfoundation.org/commentary/show/75.html
DECEMBER 15, 2004
When you see bitter headlines like "Red State Welfare Queens," and "If At First
You Don’t Secede," you know that angry urban, blue-state commentators have a new
whipping boy -- federal taxing and spending.
...
The "red welfare state" accusation is based on the Tax Foundation’s annual
comparison of federal taxes to spending in each state, which answers the question,
"Does my state get as much back in federal spending as it sends to Washington in
taxes?"
The 50 answers to that question track red and blue almost perfectly: New Mexico
(newly red) leads a gang of red states in the beneficiary column, getting almost
$2 in spending for each $1 in taxes. New Jersey finishes dead last, edging out
other blue states by receiving only 57 cents in spending per dollar of taxes.
...
Rich Travsky
No. It was the Southern Strategy. Esp as utlilized by Nixon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
...
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon
strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it, but merely popularized
it. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its
essence:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20
percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but
Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting
Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner
the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's
where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will
backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."
While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not
just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by
his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling
down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist
Democrats retired or switched to the GOP.
...
"The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe
whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans"
> If you want to see real racism (not the piddly little vestiges that pop up
> here from time to time) go to Japan. You haven't really lived until you've
> been refused service at a restaurant for being "gaijing." (That loosely
> translates to "white devil.")
I think you mean "gaijin".
CB
"Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:480EAF83...@hotmMOVEail.com...
Mexicans go home!
Rich Travsky
> "Rich Travsky" <traR...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
Spin CB Spin!
CB
<smo...@board.net> wrote in message
news:n8g7l5p0p6pasiucl...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:43:40 -0500, "John Galt"
> <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>>Oh, please.
>>
>>The entire prosperity of the developed world is the result of free market
>>economic principles that are fully supported by conservatives.
>
>
>
> The wealth class did in fact amass HUGE piles of cash---the majority
> of the world did not
>
> When that wealth and power came under regulation and control---the
> laws began to favor conditions for the middle class to rise and
> accumulate wealth--ushering in a couple of generations of building
> infrastucture to accomodate them
>
> It was ONLY when controlled Market principles were instituted---did
> the developed world rise.
>
Regulation/taxes always leads to gubment exsessand envy of what the private
sector has.
The core of the problem is Liberalism asigning 'relative moral equivelance'
between God and gubment.
Morality used to control 'good will' in business. Today it's more like hide
it if you got it, keep away from Oboobuh
Ala
"CB" <C...@PrayForMe.com> wrote in message
while witty i beg to differ, every single one of those canker sores that
taught me religion in shool is in hell or will be soon
CB
"Ala" <alac...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:SK6dnRC-4pq06snW...@earthlink.com...
Where they Catholic?
RichTravsky
> <smo...@board.net> wrote in message
> > On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:43:40 -0500, "John Galt"
> > <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Oh, please.
> >>
> >>The entire prosperity of the developed world is the result of free market
> >>economic principles that are fully supported by conservatives.
> >
> > Yawn
> >
> > The wealth class did in fact amass HUGE piles of cash---the majority
> > of the world did not
> >
> > When that wealth and power came under regulation and control---the
> > laws began to favor conditions for the middle class to rise and
> > accumulate wealth--ushering in a couple of generations of building
> > infrastucture to accomodate them
> >
> > It was ONLY when controlled Market principles were instituted---did
> > the developed world rise.
>
> Regulation/taxes always leads to gubment exsessand envy of what the private
> sector has.
How else do you pay for quagmires?
> The core of the problem is Liberalism asigning 'relative moral equivelance'
> between God and gubment.
The core of the problem is superstitious crap like that.
> Morality used to control 'good will' in business. Today it's more like hide
> it if you got it, keep away from Oboobuh
Today it's get a generator from the government.
RT