LINK
In the US, conservatives are 30% more charitable than liberals. Shouldn't it be the other way round??
Who Truly Cares?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
Maybe it's some talk about it and some do it.:p
Works in other areas too
Works in other areas too
miriam:yh_flower
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that's creativity.
.................Charles Mingus
http://www.gratefulness.org/candles/enter.cfm?
-
insanity_clause
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:21 am
Who Truly Cares?
i never take much notice of biased political pundits bill 'o' reilly is just another rightwing commentator who digs out any research to support his views much the same as noam chomsky does to support his left wing views.
Who Truly Cares?
Accountable;473696 wrote: LINK
In the US, conservatives are 30% more charitable than liberals. Shouldn't it be the other way round??
you watched that John Stossal thing too, huh? who the F cares?
In the US, conservatives are 30% more charitable than liberals. Shouldn't it be the other way round??
you watched that John Stossal thing too, huh? who the F cares?
Get your mind out of the gutter - it's blocking my view
Mind like a steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in 37 states.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Who Truly Cares?
O'Reilly didn't do the study, he is just reporting it. I watched part of the John Stossel story on ABC Primetime. Seems the biggest indicator of charitable giving is religion. Religious people are more charitable and giving than non-religious people. I guess religion isn't ALL bad, eh? It doesn't mean religious people or conservatives are more caring of the poor than liberals, just that the former believe that neighbor must help neighbor while liberals are more inclined to believe it is the responsibility of the collective society through government taxation to help the poor.
-
insanity_clause
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:21 am
Who Truly Cares?
i never said he did the study i said its not difficult to find research that supports a particular view point. it would have been very suprising for him to find and air a study that went against his political viewpoint ( unless it was for the purpose of ridicule). as for religious people being more charitable well thats hardly a suprise i guess i'd want to look at what charities they gave to maybe tele evangelicals or anti abortion charities?.
-
DesignerGal
- Posts: 2554
- Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 11:20 am
Who Truly Cares?
With all of the scandals coming out of the woodwork concerning Republicans coupled with the fact that their popularity is reaching dismal ratings, they NEED SOMETHING good to say about themselves to boost the morale of the party. Dontchathink?
HBIC
Who Truly Cares?
That may be unfair, but probably is not. The cornerstone of liberal economic thought is "income redistribution;" that is, big government taking assets from the affluent through taxation and giving said assets to the less well-off through entitlements like subsidized health care, housing, educational scholarships and the like. The left is also big on imposed "economic justice," things like guaranteed wages and lifetime job security.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in "income redistribution" give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential.
How truly perverted political debate is in america. Liberal and socialist seem to be used as if they mean the same thing. when in truth no one of a liberal disposition could follow such a political creed with it's assumption that the state should control everything. Individual freedom and socialism don't gel. When did liberals and other believers in individual freedom become such bogey men?
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
But a funny thing happened on the way to socialism. Americans who believe in "income redistribution" give 75% less to charity than Americans who do not, according to Dr. Brooks. That is a stunning differential.
How truly perverted political debate is in america. Liberal and socialist seem to be used as if they mean the same thing. when in truth no one of a liberal disposition could follow such a political creed with it's assumption that the state should control everything. Individual freedom and socialism don't gel. When did liberals and other believers in individual freedom become such bogey men?
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
-
WonderWendy3
- Posts: 12412
- Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 7:44 am
Who Truly Cares?
gmc;473881 wrote: How truly perverted political debate is in america. Liberal and socialist seem to be used as if they mean the same thing. when in truth no one of a liberal disposition could follow such a political creed with it's assumption that the state should control everything. Individual freedom and socialism don't gel. When did liberals and other believers in individual freedom become such bogey men?
America is founded on liberal principles.being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
I beg to differ with that comment...not going to argue, you are entitled to your opinion living in Scotland...but as an American...I disagree.
America is founded on liberal principles.being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
I beg to differ with that comment...not going to argue, you are entitled to your opinion living in Scotland...but as an American...I disagree.
-
insanity_clause
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:21 am
Who Truly Cares?
have to agree with gmc on this.
Who Truly Cares?
gmc;473881 wrote: How truly perverted political debate is in america. Liberal and socialist seem to be used as if they mean the same thing. when in truth no one of a liberal disposition could follow such a political creed with it's assumption that the state should control everything. Individual freedom and socialism don't gel. When did liberals and other believers in individual freedom become such bogey men?
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
It's just a preception fostered by the media and the extremists on both right and left. Most people fall into moderate postions. There are very few people who are completely liberal or conservative across the board you need to look at the indvidual issues.
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
It's just a preception fostered by the media and the extremists on both right and left. Most people fall into moderate postions. There are very few people who are completely liberal or conservative across the board you need to look at the indvidual issues.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Who Truly Cares?
SnoozeControl;473925 wrote: I haven't read the entire thread, but I've already got a hair up my ass about this... who the hell does these stupid polls? At work, I'm inundated with graphs and charts that practically dictate when we can urinate, and I have to question the validity of their numbers. Now there's some nitwit with too much time on his hands that's determining who donates more in a political party? Get a life, you moron!
Gawd! :-5
c'mere snoozie it's time for your meds;)
Gawd! :-5
c'mere snoozie it's time for your meds;)
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Who Truly Cares?
insanity_clause;473730 wrote: i never said he did the study i said its not difficult to find research that supports a particular view point. it would have been very suprising for him to find and air a study that went against his political viewpoint ( unless it was for the purpose of ridicule). as for religious people being more charitable well thats hardly a suprise i guess i'd want to look at what charities they gave to maybe tele evangelicals or anti abortion charities?.
It seems they give more to all causes. More blood, more food to the poor, more money to charities, more time as volunteers, etc.
Snooze, it wasn't a poll, it was a study. I can't speak to the scientific validity of it, but I don't know why everyone is getting so upset. The study never claimed that one group was more compassionate than another, just that they have different ideas about how and through which means to help the poor.
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
Here's a link regarding the book the information is from.
It seems they give more to all causes. More blood, more food to the poor, more money to charities, more time as volunteers, etc.
Snooze, it wasn't a poll, it was a study. I can't speak to the scientific validity of it, but I don't know why everyone is getting so upset. The study never claimed that one group was more compassionate than another, just that they have different ideas about how and through which means to help the poor.
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Some of his findings have been touched on elsewhere by other scholars, but Mr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse University, breaks new ground in amassing information from 15 sets of data in a slim 184-page book (not including the appendix) that he proudly describes as "a polemic."
Here's a link regarding the book the information is from.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
gmc;473881 wrote: How truly perverted political debate is in america. Liberal and socialist seem to be used as if they mean the same thing. when in truth no one of a liberal disposition could follow such a political creed with it's assumption that the state should control everything. Individual freedom and socialism don't gel. When did liberals and other believers in individual freedom become such bogey men?
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
The current vernacular here defines conservative and liberal as antonyms. What you call liberal I think we would call libertarian.
Of course, libertarian ideals scare the hell out of the Siamese twins, Republican and Democrat, because it would mean less money and power for them.
For the rest of these comments, I think it's really funny how bent some people get whenever I post comments from O'Reilly, not one of whom I believe have ever read or listened to him.
And yes, Wolvie, Stossel's another hero of mine.
America is founded on liberal principles.
being a cynic maybe non religious types don't feel the need to tell everybody how good they are at giving to charity but just do it because they want to and don't regard it as anybody elses business.
The current vernacular here defines conservative and liberal as antonyms. What you call liberal I think we would call libertarian.
Of course, libertarian ideals scare the hell out of the Siamese twins, Republican and Democrat, because it would mean less money and power for them.
For the rest of these comments, I think it's really funny how bent some people get whenever I post comments from O'Reilly, not one of whom I believe have ever read or listened to him.
And yes, Wolvie, Stossel's another hero of mine.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
Diuretic;474379 wrote: In spite of myself I do watch O'Reilly Acc - he is on FoxNews here which is available on cable/satellite.
Y'know, that really doesn't surprise me about you. :-6
Y'know, that really doesn't surprise me about you. :-6
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
Diuretic;474382 wrote: I try to know something about that I critique Acc - although I have been known to shoot off at the keyboard a few times 
I often get pulled into the deep water of international politics (and flounder), but I only really care deeply about individual responsibility, which gov't generally undermines.
I often get pulled into the deep water of international politics (and flounder), but I only really care deeply about individual responsibility, which gov't generally undermines.
Who Truly Cares?
WonderWendy3;473884 wrote: I beg to differ with that comment...not going to argue, you are entitled to your opinion living in Scotland...but as an American...I disagree.
You should argue-after all that is what a forum is for.
It's not opinion it's a fact, it's in your decalaration of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
your very first amendment
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So you are saying that the concept of individual liberty, individual rights, freedom of thought had no part to play in the foundation of america?
If it wasn't founded on liberal principles what principles was it founded on?
What about nowadays is the concept of individual liberty extinct in america?
You should argue-after all that is what a forum is for.
It's not opinion it's a fact, it's in your decalaration of independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
your very first amendment
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So you are saying that the concept of individual liberty, individual rights, freedom of thought had no part to play in the foundation of america?
If it wasn't founded on liberal principles what principles was it founded on?
What about nowadays is the concept of individual liberty extinct in america?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
gmc;475441 wrote: What about nowadays is the concept of individual liberty extinct in america?
I'm still fighting the good fight, gmc. :yh_flag
I'm still fighting the good fight, gmc. :yh_flag
Who Truly Cares?
Accountable;475829 wrote: I'm still fighting the good fight, gmc. :yh_flag
Maybe it should be called the forever war. Some things never change.
In 1649, Lilburne published the “Agreement of the Peopleâ€, a manifesto for constituional reform in Britain that gave birth to many of the ideas that are embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This particular version was smuggled out of the Tower of London, where Lilburne and the others were being held captive.
All Leveller soldiers, and they were the majority in many regiments, carried this agreement proudly tucked into their hat-band. The agreement proposed a written constitution to define England’s government, abolish arbitrary power, set limits to authority, and remove grievances.
Included in the Agreement of the People (1649):
* right to for all people to vote for their representatives
* right against self-incrimination
* freedom of religion and press
* equality of all persons before the law
* no judgment touching life, liberty or property but by jury trial
* abolition of capital punishment except for murder
* no military conscription of conscientious objectors
* no monopolies, tithes, or excise taxes
* taxation proportionate to real or personal property
* grading of punishments to fit the crime
* abolition of imprisonment for debt
Although the Leveller movement ended, and John Lilburne eventually died in prison, the ideas of the Levellers live on.
The Levellers were the social libertarians of the day (or classic liberals). "Leveller" was a term of abuse, coined by their opponents to exaggerate the threat of their ideas. Sound familiar?
posted by accountable
For the rest of these comments, I think it's really funny how bent some people get whenever I post comments from O'Reilly, not one of whom I believe have ever read or listened to him.
Outside of america O'Reilly is a complete nonentity. We tend to see the extremes of opinion as they are what are classed as newsworthy. It's hard to believe that so rabid a commentator is taken seriously.
The idea that the poor and disadvantaged should only have charity to help them is probably one of the biggest diferences between the US and UK. Here it is a given that one of the functions of govt is to help people get out of poverty not leave them to their fate on the assumption that they are just feckless and not worthy.
Maybe it should be called the forever war. Some things never change.
In 1649, Lilburne published the “Agreement of the Peopleâ€, a manifesto for constituional reform in Britain that gave birth to many of the ideas that are embodied in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. This particular version was smuggled out of the Tower of London, where Lilburne and the others were being held captive.
All Leveller soldiers, and they were the majority in many regiments, carried this agreement proudly tucked into their hat-band. The agreement proposed a written constitution to define England’s government, abolish arbitrary power, set limits to authority, and remove grievances.
Included in the Agreement of the People (1649):
* right to for all people to vote for their representatives
* right against self-incrimination
* freedom of religion and press
* equality of all persons before the law
* no judgment touching life, liberty or property but by jury trial
* abolition of capital punishment except for murder
* no military conscription of conscientious objectors
* no monopolies, tithes, or excise taxes
* taxation proportionate to real or personal property
* grading of punishments to fit the crime
* abolition of imprisonment for debt
Although the Leveller movement ended, and John Lilburne eventually died in prison, the ideas of the Levellers live on.
The Levellers were the social libertarians of the day (or classic liberals). "Leveller" was a term of abuse, coined by their opponents to exaggerate the threat of their ideas. Sound familiar?
posted by accountable
For the rest of these comments, I think it's really funny how bent some people get whenever I post comments from O'Reilly, not one of whom I believe have ever read or listened to him.
Outside of america O'Reilly is a complete nonentity. We tend to see the extremes of opinion as they are what are classed as newsworthy. It's hard to believe that so rabid a commentator is taken seriously.
The idea that the poor and disadvantaged should only have charity to help them is probably one of the biggest diferences between the US and UK. Here it is a given that one of the functions of govt is to help people get out of poverty not leave them to their fate on the assumption that they are just feckless and not worthy.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Who Truly Cares?
It's hard to believe that so rabid a commentator is taken seriously
Rabid? Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly? I mean seriously watched his show? He may be arrogant but he is hardly rabid ( and I'm not a Factor groupie). It always amazes me how any journalist who exhibits a sniff of conservatism is labeled a rabid hatemonger, but guys like Keith Olberman get off scott free. O'Reilly is no different from Chris Matthews....except that he is probably less biased.
Rabid? Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly? I mean seriously watched his show? He may be arrogant but he is hardly rabid ( and I'm not a Factor groupie). It always amazes me how any journalist who exhibits a sniff of conservatism is labeled a rabid hatemonger, but guys like Keith Olberman get off scott free. O'Reilly is no different from Chris Matthews....except that he is probably less biased.
Who Truly Cares?
Adam Zapple;476813 wrote: Rabid? Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly? I mean seriously watched his show? He may be arrogant but he is hardly rabid ( and I'm not a Factor groupie). It always amazes me how any journalist who exhibits a sniff of conservatism is labeled a rabid hatemonger, but guys like Keith Olberman get off scott free. O'Reilly is no different from Chris Matthews....except that he is probably less biased.
No I haven't Like i said outside of the US he is a nonentity. The only place I have seen him mentioned is in this forum. I was basing the comment on the article which is hardly a sensible reasoned piece of journalism but rather a rant. Although I will concede one article is not enough to really base an opinion on.
No I haven't Like i said outside of the US he is a nonentity. The only place I have seen him mentioned is in this forum. I was basing the comment on the article which is hardly a sensible reasoned piece of journalism but rather a rant. Although I will concede one article is not enough to really base an opinion on.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
Adam Zapple;476813 wrote: Rabid? Have you ever actually watched O'Reilly? I mean seriously watched his show? He may be arrogant but he is hardly rabid ( and I'm not a Factor groupie). It always amazes me how any journalist who exhibits a sniff of conservatism is labeled a rabid hatemonger, but guys like Keith Olberman get off scott free. O'Reilly is no different from Chris Matthews....except that he is probably less biased.
That's because Keith Olberman is a nonentity (to borrow gmc's phrase) even in the US. Does anybody watch him?
I had to look up bombastic, Di, and I agree with you. He is bombastic and all the other adjectives you used in that post. That doesn't make him wrong in his opinions, only the wrong guy to invite to dinner.
O'Reilly doesn't spin, doesn't make excuses or allowances, and doesn't pull punches. Those are admirable traits.
That's because Keith Olberman is a nonentity (to borrow gmc's phrase) even in the US. Does anybody watch him?
I had to look up bombastic, Di, and I agree with you. He is bombastic and all the other adjectives you used in that post. That doesn't make him wrong in his opinions, only the wrong guy to invite to dinner.
O'Reilly doesn't spin, doesn't make excuses or allowances, and doesn't pull punches. Those are admirable traits.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Who Truly Cares?
Diuretic;477433 wrote: I think Olberman is on MSNBC and I think that's not available outside of North
America. I have seen some of his clips on YouTube and I have to say he is a pretty straightforward type. He is also measured. I admit to despising O'Reilly's style, just as I despise Limbaugh's style (yes I always make a point of listening to him when I'm in the States and I even have one of his books) and Liddy...just creepy :-2
But on O'Reilly's substance. Yes, you're quite right, I really should disregard the display and listen to the argument. And having said that I am immediately at a loss because - I'm not being snarky here, this is as it is - I can't remember too many of his arguments. Now that's probably my fault because I go into loathing mode when I hear him. I promise - and I'm not being facetious - that next time I tune in on the No-Spin Zone (gimme a break! lol) I will try and follow an argument, try to fairly summarise it and then give it the mother and father of a belting somewhere on here. How's that?
I also watch the BBC - it's World Service is available on cable and I listen to the World Service radio (excellent, excellent radio). I would love to see O'Reilly or Limbaugh interviewed by one of the best BBC radio or tv interviewers. Either of these two http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/speci ... ew_archiv/ would slice up both O'Reilly and Limbaugh and do so with charm and good taste.
Anyway, your point is well made Acc - I shall discpline myself and listen to O'Reilly's argument next time I tune in.
The above is posted without rancour and without being a smart-arse. Seriously.
You are a better man than I, Di. :yh_worshp
America. I have seen some of his clips on YouTube and I have to say he is a pretty straightforward type. He is also measured. I admit to despising O'Reilly's style, just as I despise Limbaugh's style (yes I always make a point of listening to him when I'm in the States and I even have one of his books) and Liddy...just creepy :-2
But on O'Reilly's substance. Yes, you're quite right, I really should disregard the display and listen to the argument. And having said that I am immediately at a loss because - I'm not being snarky here, this is as it is - I can't remember too many of his arguments. Now that's probably my fault because I go into loathing mode when I hear him. I promise - and I'm not being facetious - that next time I tune in on the No-Spin Zone (gimme a break! lol) I will try and follow an argument, try to fairly summarise it and then give it the mother and father of a belting somewhere on here. How's that?
I also watch the BBC - it's World Service is available on cable and I listen to the World Service radio (excellent, excellent radio). I would love to see O'Reilly or Limbaugh interviewed by one of the best BBC radio or tv interviewers. Either of these two http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/speci ... ew_archiv/ would slice up both O'Reilly and Limbaugh and do so with charm and good taste.
Anyway, your point is well made Acc - I shall discpline myself and listen to O'Reilly's argument next time I tune in.
The above is posted without rancour and without being a smart-arse. Seriously.
You are a better man than I, Di. :yh_worshp
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
Who Truly Cares?
He is a prick
I won't argue with that but as Accountable said, some pricks can be very respectable. I knew some in the military that I deeply respected because they knew their business and were excellent at their jobs.
As for the comment about Keith Olberman being measured, I'll assume either you haven't seen enough "clips" (I've watched large portions of his show) or we have different ideas of what "measured" means.
I won't argue with that but as Accountable said, some pricks can be very respectable. I knew some in the military that I deeply respected because they knew their business and were excellent at their jobs.
As for the comment about Keith Olberman being measured, I'll assume either you haven't seen enough "clips" (I've watched large portions of his show) or we have different ideas of what "measured" means.