Conservatives Kinder and Sexier

[Riverwind]

Ok then it is your opinion.

It is my opinion based on reading materials which are not available online. My assertion is accurate and all you need to do is look at financial statements for any suburban church if you don't believe me.

[sunsettommy]

If you could give me some concrete examples (other than tax confiscation) of left wing altruism in the form of dollars and sense, I'd be thrilled to see the comparison.

Which does more charity work: a group that sets up food banks and asks for gov't and private contributions or a group that lobbies politicians to outlaw abortion? Your statistics cannot be used to draw the conclusions you would like to draw so don't bother pretending you have proven anything. If you really believe that 'right-wing' people are more charitable then post some statistics that exclude donations to churches and political lobby groups.

Do you know what the difference between evidence and opinion?

So far all you give us is OPINIONS.

Where is the proof?

[Riverwind]

Where is the proof?

Then you agree that the original artical is an opinion piece that is not backed up by facts?

[sunsettommy]

Ok then it is your opinion.

It is my opinion based on reading materials which are not available online. My assertion is accurate and all you need to do is look at financial statements for any suburban church if you don't believe me.

Thank you for your OPINION!

[sunsettommy]

Where is the proof?

Then you agree that the original artical is an opinion piece that is not backed up by facts?

It is an opinion since he has posted a tentaive source that may not be read by us since he did not bother to provide a fully described source to look for.

Satisfied?

[sunsettommy]

Meanwhile you provided ZERO sources to back up your claims.Zero sourced facts and zero personal experiences to draw from.

That is why what you said is an opinion.

[Riverwind]

Meanwhile you provided ZERO sources to back up your claims.Zero sourced facts and zero personal experiences to draw from.

Wrong - I have read the finanical statements for two different suburban churches and I know in those cases that almost all of the money was going to pay for buildings and priests. This information is not available online so I cannot satisfy your demands for links. But I am talking from personal experience and I am confident that my statements are accurate. You can insist on denying my point but your denial does not mean it is not true.

[Black Dog]

I think if someone is going to make a statement, as Brooks has, that conservatives give more than liberals, it is incumbent upon them to show where they give and what they give. I'm sure there will be more opportunities to examine his methodology once the book comes out. But I'd wager that once the collection plate is factored out of the equation, the conclusion would change.

[JerrySeinfeld]

I think if someone is going to make a statement, as Brooks has, that conservatives give more than liberals, it is incumbent upon them to show where they give and what they give. I'm sure there will be more opportunities to examine his methodology once the book comes out. But I'd wager that once the collection plate is factored out of the equation, the conclusion would change.

No. By bringing up church giving, Riverwind implicitly makes an unsubstatiated comment that 75% of conservative charitable giving is to churches. And even if that were true (good luck with that one), that still only means that conservatives are on EQUAL footing with lefties. So much for the myth that liberals are kinder.

BTW I haven't heard one peep about the comment about Kerry being the candidate preferred by the richest of the rich.

[Black Dog]

No. By bringing up church giving, Riverwind implicitly makes an unsubstatiated comment that 75% of conservative charitable giving is to churches. And even if that were true (good luck with that one), that still only means that conservatives are on EQUAL footing with lefties. So much for the myth that liberals are kinder.

How does one "implicitly" make a comment? Either he implied it, or he said it. And, incidentally, he said nothing of the sort. IOW, you pulled the 75% out of the air.

BTW I haven't heard one peep about the comment about Kerry being the candidate preferred by the richest of the rich.

Here's a peep: bullshit.

Vote By Income:

$200,000 or More

Bush 63% Kerry: 35%

Oh and the statement that "In 2000, Al Gore beat George Bush among the 4% of voters who described themselves to exit pollsters as "upper class.""?

Also bullshit.

Vote By Income

Over $100,000

Gore 43% Bush 54 %

[JerrySeinfeld]

How does one "implicitly" make a comment? Either he implied it, or he said it. And, incidentally, he said nothing of the sort. IOW, you pulled the 75% out of the air.

OK so you concede that the 4:1 (conservatives outgiving libs) ratio is accurate. Good to hear. If the ratio is actually equal or less than 1 excluding churchgiving, then by definition 75% or more of conservative giving must be churchgiving.

You should take a some math.

[Black Dog]

OK so you concede that the 4:1 (conservatives outgiving libs) ratio is accurate. Good to hear. If the ratio is actually equal or less than 1 excluding churchgiving, then by definition 75% or more of conservative giving must be churchgiving.

Oh look. Another bogus figure. The 4:1 ratio comes from this:

Consider for example this one fundamental liberal/conservative dividing line, the question "Do you believe the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality?" In a major 1996 survey, 33% of Americans gave the liberal answer, "yes"; 43% gave the conservative answer, "no."

Those who gave the conservative answer were more likely to give to charity than those who gave the liberal answer. And when they gave, they gave much more: an average of four times as much as liberal givers.

.

[Riverwind]

For those of you demanding numbers:

http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060605/d060605a.htm

Charitable giving: Religious organizations largest beneficiaries

Religious organizations got the highest proportion of total donations in 2004, about 45%, or nearly $4.0 billion. Donors to religious organizations made the largest average donations, about $395. Health organizations were second, receiving more than $1.2 billion, or 14% of the total.

Although religious organizations were given more money than other organizations, other organizations have a wider base of support in the population. Almost 6 out of 10 Canadians (57%) made donations to health organizations, 43% donated to social services organizations, and 38% donated to religious organizations.

There it is in black and white. Churches received close to 45% of 'charitable' donations in Canada and people who donate to churches are likely to donate more money than people who donate to other types of charities. This more or less proves that you cannot draw conclusions about the generosity of people based on their total charitable donations unless you also ask how much people donated to charities other than the church they attend.

[Higgly]

Nice score, Riverwind. Your comments about churches are bang on.

You gotta wonder how desperate the neocons must be to fall back on this sort of image building. And let's face it, Frum is pretty much a core neocon. Not a major player, but cetainly a visible standard bearer. Too bad he squandered his capital on Junior. He might have had a nice warm home as a spinmeister for Steve et al..

I see little white flags all over the place.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Nice score, Riverwind. Your comments about churches are bang on.

You gotta wonder how desperate the neocons must be to fall back on this sort of image building. And let's face it, Frum is pretty much a core neocon. Not a major player, but cetainly a visible standard bearer. Too bad he squandered his capital on Junior. He might have had a nice warm home as a spinmeister for Steve et al..

I see little white flags all over the place.

He's not image-building - he's tearing apart stereotypes.

The very fact that we're having this debate is a victory for conservatives.

The main point here is that, just because you believe in a "feel good" ideology doesn't make you any more of a "kind" or "sexy" person and that many (maybe most?) conservatives are kinder and sexier than their liberal counterparts.

So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

[Higgly]

So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

He-he. Well maybe, but I'm not the one who started the thread.

[Black Dog]

The very fact that we're having this debate is a victory for conservatives.

What a fucking stupid statement. We're having this debate because you brought it up in a discussion forum.

The main point here is that, just because you believe in a "feel good" ideology doesn't make you any more of a "kind" or "sexy" person and that many (maybe most?) conservatives are kinder and sexier than their liberal counterparts.

Your restatement of your (or rather, Frum's) initial premise is truely devastating and overwhelms all the errors and gaps in the initial argument. Oh wait: it doesn't.

So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

So if I call you a "Nazi pigf**ker" and you deny it, that proves you are a Nazi pigf**ker. Cool.

[JerrySeinfeld]

So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

He-he. Well maybe, but I'm not the one who started the thread.

True - but somehow it lives on Keep on protesting

I am enjoying this, however. Frum's article begins with Eva Longoria's stereotypes about conservatives.

All I have seen thus far is a bunch of lefties basically saying "no, conservatives aren't THAT much nicer than lefties - some of that giving goes to churches" which is hardly a convincing argument. And even if it were true, then we'd be on equal footing.

So much for stereotypes

[JerrySeinfeld]

The very fact that we're having this debate is a victory for conservatives.

What a fucking stupid statement. We're having this debate because you brought it up in a discussion forum.

The main point here is that, just because you believe in a "feel good" ideology doesn't make you any more of a "kind" or "sexy" person and that many (maybe most?) conservatives are kinder and sexier than their liberal counterparts.

Your restatement of your (or rather, Frum's) initial premise is truely devastating and overwhelms all the errors and gaps in the initial argument. Oh wait: it doesn't.

So keep on debating, libs. "Me thinks thou protesteth too much"

So if I call you a "Nazi pigf**ker" and you deny it, that proves you are a Nazi pigf**ker. Cool.

I presume there is a point in there somewhere?

[Black Dog]

All I have seen thus far is a bunch of lefties basically saying "no, conservatives aren't THAT much nicer than lefties - some of that giving goes to churches" which is hardly a convincing argument. And even if it were true, then we'd be on equal footing.

Uh... if they are equal then your argument that conservatives are "nicer" than liberals goes out the window.

So what do we have?

"The Democrats are the party of the rich." False.

"Republicans have better sex." Based on a study that says no such thing.

"Republicans are more generous." Only if you include church donations, which may or may not support actual charity work.

Also neglected is the strong correlation between income and giving. That is: lower-income earners tend to give away a greater share of their income than upper income earners. It also hapens that lower income people tend to be Democrats....

I presume there is a point in there somewhere?

Yeah, just not one a Nazi pigf**ker would understand.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yeah, just not one a Nazi pigf**ker would understand.

Usually when someone runs out of arguments they start namecalling. Sticks and stones

Anyway, now that we've established that Eva Longoria's stereotype is basesless let's continue with how conservatives are Kinder and sexier.

[Black Dog]

Usually when someone runs out of arguments they start namecalling. Sticks and stones

Who's name calling? I am simply stating the incontrovertible scientific fact that you are a Nazi who has intercourse with pigs. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Usually when someone runs out of arguments they start namecalling. Sticks and stones

Who's name calling? I am simply stating the incontrovertible scientific fact that you are a Nazi who has intercourse with pigs. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Guilty as charged

[JerrySeinfeld]

Usually when someone runs out of arguments they start namecalling. Sticks and stones

Who's name calling? I am simply stating the incontrovertible scientific fact that you are a Nazi who has intercourse with pigs. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

Guilty as charged - and yet I'm still kinder and sexier than you

[Black Dog]

Guilty as charged - and yet I'm still kinder and sexier than you

Did the pig tell you that?