Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

Liberal elitism? "I know better how you should live". I won't talk about the fish here, but I think you get the idea.

 

Educated isn't elitism, but I guess that doesn't make sense to you. Don't rely on my educated prose, read for yourself the facts:

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/s...abato/education-level-tied-voting-tendencies/


http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...cratic-and-less-educated-americans-republican

 

Maybe not, but using it as a reason to rule the masses is.

 

Huh? Are you trying to say we need more uneducated people running things? I think we tried that with Bush and it didn't work. Not sure what you're getting at.

 

Nah. More people who know how fish rather than hand out fish other people caught. They are the only ones who know what living is about.

 

“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”

-A. Pine

 

But for all your (liberal) blessed education, you have not learned to share yet. Now I will cite facts - gemerated by one of your left leaning educated people.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/#ixzz2Vrywg66g​

 

Then where do you fall in, after the statement you made alluding to the fact that we need more people capable of catching fish and less wanting fish handed to them? Doesn't sound too philanthropic to me. Not to mention, the party who has been opposed to welfare, medicaid, head start and numerous other programs doesn't sound like a group who is too interested in giving anything to anyone. I have to wonder exactly what they give and to whom.

 

Yeah, I realize how you don't get it. However, I feel it is more humane to enable their survival rather than make them dependent on someone else's help. In many ways, it is worse than being addicted to drugs.

 

I'm glad you reminded people of that fact. I'm aware of it, of course, but any new people here can easily assume the Breitbart-crew's half-truth, because it is indeed half true. They leave out the fact that you were "channeling" Jefferson.

They do this as a direct homage to FOX "News" and their bastardly use of the half-truth, ala-Breitbart. Fools listen to it, accepting it as gospel, where it is in fact the acts of con-men. There's too much at stake here for us to let this bs continue, and we Democrats are done putting up with the consequences of these foolish people's con-man psychosis.

For our good and theirs, we have to get enough people to see our reasoning as more palatable than theirs. There will always be a large group dedicated to disruption, but we can get past that bs by continuing to fight back using reason and honesty...maybe...Nah, no problem, easy peasy...(coughs, makes sign of cross, yin-yang, Voodoo Child, Slight Return, etc before continuing)...We may have to slap a few people around but...Hey, just kidding... ...(coughs)...

 

You might find life more interesting if you could read what was actually said. My guess is that you will not see this, but it is here for you anyway.

 

(dons sunglasses)... ...Word.

 

IMO, the alters of "Greed", "Selfishness", "Denial", "Hate", "Power", "Lust"...

...uhm, Me to on that one...(coughs)...

...Oh come on, I'm human for Pete's sake, sheesh! So what if my goal in life is to break the gender inequality gap amongst us lesbians...I mean I like women...they like woman...so we're lesbians and they're holding out on me...It's discrimination, man!...(flustered)...I can't talk right now...I just can't...this things got me all emotional and chit....(to lesbians) Why!? ...Why!? ...Why must you discriminate!

OK, I'm done. ...hehhehhheh

 

Oh, my....! Liberal dogma if I've ever heard it! BS is more like it.

 

So what is it? First you tell me how the right is far more charitable than the left. Then you say those who need have to learn to "fend for themselves". That doesn't sound too charitable to me.

Really? Care to elaborate? I've already posted facts that support my basis, while all you ever post is derogatory dribble. I'd be interested to hear some actual intellectual insight from you.

 

Maybe that is the big difference between the liberal philosophy and conservative philosophy. You (liberals) really cannot understand how someone living on their own by their own hand is happier, healthier, and just plane better than one being totally hand fed everything. Just look at what the zoo keepers are trying to do to improve the lives of their care. Think about that for a moment.

I will let CoinOKC answer his own part.

 

No, I'm trying to understand what and to whom the conservatives give. Contributions to billionaire politicians' campaigns doesn't qualify as charity.

 

You know, maybe it is just my anecdotal experience but, I've never met a conservative in any of my roles in non-profits, volunteer work, or just community projects. I'm not saying that there couldn't have been conservatives in those ranks but the vast, vast majority of people that showed up were clearly liberal do-gooders. If you want to see groups of conservatives doing charity work, go look for people pushing their religion on others. You'll find next to zero liberals in those ranks because the ulterior motive for conservatives is to get people to believe as they do not help people. IMHO.

 

The study they reference to reassure themselves that they aren't a bunch of old angry white guys basically took IRS data and didn't breakdown what the giving went for just that they gave it to some religion. It was a very flawed study and has been discredited since it was published in 2006.

Are Conservatives Really More Charitable? Or Just More Religious?

Posted: 08/28/2012 8:32 am


Back when Saturday Night Live was funny, Dana Carvey portrayed The Church Lady, a self-righteous, pompous, meddlesome woman. She was fond of doing the Superior Dance, because she was, well, superior -- or so she thought.
Conservatives are doing their own Superior Dance over an article by The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which claims individuals in religious states are more charitable than those in less religious states.
At the Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby did his Superior Dance under the title "Stingy liberals:"

Liberals, popular stereotypes notwithstanding, are not more generous and compassionate than conservatives. To an outsider it might seem plausible that Americans whose political rhetoric emphasizes "fairness" and "social justice" would be more charitably inclined than those who stress economic liberty and individual autonomy.​

Catholic fundamentalist Bill Donahue put on his Church Lady drag -- not that he ever takes it off -- and crowed:

Liberals are the least likely to help the poor. That's the inescapable conclusion of this new study: states where people participate in religion at a high rate are also the most generous; conversely, the least generous states are also the least religious.​

The report does say religion plays a role:

Religion has a big influence on giving patterns. Regions of the country that are deeply religious are more generous than those that are not. Two of the top nine states -- Utah and Idaho -- have high numbers of Mormon residents, who have a tradition of tithing at least 10 percent of their income to the church. The remaining states in the top nine are all in the Bible Belt.​

But conservatives are ignoring the obvious. Something to notice is in the mention of "tithing... to the church." All the survey did was take IRS data "showing the value of charitable deductions claimed by Americans taxpayers." What the IRS may mean by charitable, and what most people think of as charitable, may not be the same thing.
For instance, a local fundamentalist church may spend the bulk of its resources degrading and attacking other faiths, insulting gay people and leading crusades to strip people of their civil liberties. They may never feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or comfort the afflicted. Yet in IRS terms they are a charity no matter how uncharitable they may be.
The report states that the IRS "does not provide data about the specific charities people supported." In other words, there is no data about who is feeding the poor, as Donahue claims.
Since donations to religious groups, even uncharitable ones, count as "charitable giving," then it is no surprise that religious people give more to charity. Simply put, the study shows that non-religious people don't donate to religion. This is neither earth shattering nor particularly informative. Nor is it surprising that those states populated by sects that push their members to tithe report higher "charitable" giving.
Donations to churches may get reused in a manner that would not be tax-deductible itself, as it would not be considered charitable. For instance, donations to the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization, are tax-deductible. Yet the organization gave almost $2 million to fund anti-gay campaigns by the National Organization for Marriage. If the "charitable" Catholics who gave that money had directly donated it to NOM, they would never have received a tax write-off.

However, if you donated to the Human Rights Campaign to counter campaigns funded by the Knights, that donation "can not be classified as tax deductible." Only one funds given to the churches in this political campaign were counted as charitable.
It is not surprising that the most "giving" state is Utah, with a heavy population of Mormons who are required to give 10% of their income to the sect. Their total charitable giving is 10.6% of discretionary income -- a substantial portion of which has to be going to the church as opposed to purely charitable purposes.
But neither Jacoby nor Donahue mentioned West Hollywood, a heavily Democratic city and one of the "gayest." The survey shows residents there give 9% of their discretionary income to charity. I would think most of that went to purely charitable purposes as opposed to religious ones.
The Chronicle of Philanthrophy also made a point that conservatives ignored:

When religious giving isn't counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast would jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2 in the rankings, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.​

They also noted:

A study by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University found that the residents of New Hampshire -- which ranked dead last in both surveys by The Chronicle-- weren't stingy; they were simply nonbelievers.​

​

"New Hampshire gives next to nothing to religious organizations," says Patrick Rooney, the center's leader, "but their secular giving is identical to the rest of country."​

Sometimes it helps to read the whole report, not just the sections that make you feel superior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-peron/conservatives-charitable-giving_b_1835201.html

 

Thats scary.