View Single Post
Old 12-26-2008, 02:01 PM   #66
Mavdog
Diamond Member
 
Mavdog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,014
Mavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud ofMavdog has much to be proud of
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexamenos
...anyway, so conservatives get to count church donations and liberals count as charitable giving musuem donations and money sent to save the friggin' whales and trees -- charities which are in my estimation of less social value than churches.

so let's just say that the exceedingly common liberal objection to church giving rather misses the mark....
well, if the frame is who contributes to pollution and who helps with pollution, with the trees and such helping clean the air, and the televangelist certainly not....the phrase "polluting the airwaves" is certainly appropriate.

Quote:
....not to mention the fact that conservatives give more blood, a bit of data I believe which overwhelmingly shows that conservatives are more inclined to voluntary giving (a redundant redundancy).
hmm, last time I gave blood they paid $ for the stuff...."giving" is a bit of a misnomer in that case.

Quote:
I always thought the more interesting part of such surveys was that poor people give more, at least in relative terms.
absolutely true, empathy opens the purse more than sympathy does.
Mavdog is offline   Reply With Quote