Speaking of propaganda...

I may approach a Taoist but not that closely.

Advocate wrote:

Finn, really, your ramblings are not worth the paper on which they are not printed. It has been awhile since I read such a mish-mash of self-serving BS. I will know better than to read your garbage in the future.

Finn's comments addressed the subject being discussed, were on point, offered some interesting perspective whether or not you agree with it, and he did not make a single ad hominem reference.

Your post is directed as an insult at another member and doesn't even make pretense of addressing the subject being discussed.

And you call HIS post ramblings?

I believe that Good Ole Dys' stetson is too tight and has restricted the flow of blood to his brain.

he did not make a single ad hominem reference

Fox...

Finn's ad hominem was in his post about which you said...

Foxfyre wrote:

he did not make a single ad hominem reference

What is so pathetic about conservative objections on the subject of whether or not it is best for the government to help the needy, or for private individuals to do so, is that conservatives don't do it. Read any number of posts here; conservatives consistently blame people for their needs, and express no desire to help, and protest that it is not their place to help those who the claim will not help themselves.

Basically, conservatives don't give a rat's ass about anyone else, but attempt to cloak their meanness in arguments about government responsibility versus personal responsibility. They're grasping cheapskates..........

........... Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent..............

.........You may recall a flap during the 2000 election campaign when the fact came out that Al Gore donated a smaller percentage of his income to charity than the national average. That was perfectly consistent with his liberalism.

So is the fact that most of the states that voted for John Kerry during the 2004 election donated a lower percentage of their incomes to charity than the states that voted for George W. Bush.

According to Professor Brooks: "If liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply of the United States would jump about 45 percent."

Professor Brooks admits that the facts he uncovered were the opposite of what he expected to find -- so much so that he went back and checked these facts again, to make sure there was no mistake.........

Regarding so-called compassionate conservatives, I really question the methodology that found conservatives more charitable.

I wager the determination was based on IRS stats on giving in red versus blue areas. This is probably not valid inasmuch contributions to religious institutions are lumped in the figures for charitable gifts. I would concede that conservatives are more religious, and give much more to religious institutions. I doubt they are more charitable.

See the following from the linked article.


The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.

Based on my personal experience with churches:

Wages, rent, computers networks, million dollar roof renovations....

Based on my personal experience with churches:

Wages, rent, computers networks, million dollar roof renovations....

It also needs to be pointed out that blue states have a much higher cost of living than red states do. A higher % of income is spent on housing in blue states as well, leaving a lower % of income to be spent on charity.

It also needs to be pointed out that blue states have a much higher cost of living than red states do. A higher % of income is spent on housing in blue states as well, leaving a lower % of income to be spent on charity.