Shocking and disgusting discovery. . .

I LOL at silly statistics.

 

Of course, this comes from a college professor, whom we all know are bastions of liberalismalityness so of course we can't believe a single word.

 

Erm...I didn't know helping people out was such a sin. My bad! Not that I'm gonna repent of it any time soon...

 

Were there any statistics on how tight the undies are knotted up on the other side of the fence?

In the underwear industry, the tensil strength of the materials has been ratcheting up for the last 40 years to be able to handle the load.

Undies of the 1960's worn today would fly right off those liberals.

:lol: :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 1 2007, 01:47 AM) [snapback]433082[/snapback]</div>

47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Tom

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 1 2007, 12:25 AM) [snapback]433102[/snapback]</div>

It's weird that I see mostly liberal minded people participating in the community works I'm involved with. Maybe it's because would rather spend their time helping out rather than writing tax deductable checks. If the statistic is true then all well and good. Can't fault people for helping out regardless of their beliefs.

And you brought this up why?

 

So I should cancel my platlet donation at the blood center tonight?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 1 2007, 01:26 AM) [snapback]433077[/snapback]</div>

LOL, Truth hurts sometimes.. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Wow. No bitterness here, is there?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ May 1 2007, 06:48 AM) [snapback]433146[/snapback]</div>

There's a number of reasonably thoughtful reviews of this book that question some of the data sets he uses to draw his conclusion:

Brooks's red state-blue state comparisons are also drawing scrutiny. He triumphantly points out that of the 25 states that give the most per capita to charity, 24 went for President Bush in the 2004 election. And in a striking passage, he observes that residents of both San Francisco and South Dakota donate about $1,300 per family to charity, even though the average San Franciscan family makes $80,000, while the average South Dakotan family makes $45,000.

Why the difference? Brooks quotes the "director of a major San Franciscan foundation" as suggesting that "this a pretty godless place."

But John Havens, associate director of Boston College's Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, points out that once you correct for cost of living, the San Franciscan family earns only 15 percent more than the South Dakotan. Indeed, in the Boston College center's ranking of states by personal generosity -- a ranking that corrects for cost of living and tax burden -- blue states do fine: Of the top five states, four -- New York, California, Connecticut, and Maryland -- are blue.
http://www.boston.com/news/education/highe...2/10/who_gives/

There's also a lot of stimulating discussion on:
http://volokh.com/posts/1164012942.shtml
http://dot-org.blogspot.com/2007/02/who-re...art-1-of-2.html

 

Never fails. Anytime I look in on a religious / conservative thread it's always very antagonistic. You think I would learn my lesson.

 

Did the statistics reveal what percent of that "charity" goes to their church or other churches? Cause buying your way into heaven shouldn't count as "charity."

And even if a religious person did donate outside of the church, how can one be absolutely certain that it's from the goodness of the heart or if they're trying to perform well under the watchful eyes of an all knowing, all seeing, all judging referee who gets to decide if you're going to burn in hell or fly with the angels? What's a non religious person's excuse/motvie to donate other than to help his fellow man?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 1 2007, 04:07 PM) [snapback]433578[/snapback]</div>

People who try to follow what the new testament actually says wouldn't try to gain salvation through works. That's old testament, and that's what Christ died to end (salvation through law).

I'm trying to decide if paragraph 2 is some bit of sarcasm, intricately done, or if it's in earnest, and I'm thinking it's probably the latter.

What's a "religious" person's motive to donate, other than to help his fellow man, I ask you?!? And don't you figure that there are a few "non-religious" people who donate for tax purposes, etc?

And if money goes to a church, how do you know what happens to it then? Maybe it goes to a use we could (some of us) agree upon -- like feeding someone who needs it, helping those who need it in some material fashion. That sounds like a good thing to do... doesn't sound like trying to buy an indulgence, to me...

How about just giving people who give, credit for what their actions are?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ May 1 2007, 09:19 AM) [snapback]433157[/snapback]</div>

To prove the meds aren't working anymore... :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ May 1 2007, 05:57 PM) [snapback]433628[/snapback]</div>

LOL

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ May 1 2007, 08:05 AM) [snapback]433216[/snapback]</div>

It's anecdotal. I see it with my own eyes. Go out and do some of this work instead of spreading crap on the forums and maybe you will see the same thing or maybe something different but at least you'll see it AND get something done in the community.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ May 1 2007, 06:07 PM) [snapback]433578[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zapranoth @ May 1 2007, 07:19 PM) [snapback]433603[/snapback]</div>

Sadly, some here are incapable of that because they dwell on people with a different worldview as "evil" even when they are sincerly trying to help. There were plenty of charities of all types that had corruption problems after 9/11 & Katrina - American Red Cross had some problems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Red_..._11_controversy )