• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3 Democrats Drop Plans to Seek Re-election

It's greedy of you to demand well kept infrastructure and the like but bitch about taxes constantly. Seriously - no wonder NHS is so much better than anything the US offers. :rofl

How does the NEA contribute to the infrastructure in Illinois or Chicago? Please, enlighten me.
 
There was once a website that comprehensively detailed charity by both geography, religion, and political ideology, but it has been buried under an avalanche of partisan articles. Social conservatives in evangelical populations were highest, libertarians were lowest. Or maybe Christian liberals and libertarians were about equal and atheistic libertarians were lowest.

However, on intuition, there is no reason to believe libertarians give a great deal to charity. The Republican charity numbers are inflated by the systematic charity of the evangelical church network; libertarians would only be party to that to the extent they are participants in the evangelical culture, which they generally are not. Libertarianism is dominant among a completely different kind of American. Evangelicals, for example, are much more favorable to both imperialism and to government welfare and intervention than libertarians.
Meh ... I'll take your word on it then. I think your statement that libertarians believe "laziness and government handouts are the main cause of poverty" is a gross oversimplification, but I am too lazy right now to go down that road with you.

I think the libertarian pool (small though it may be) is divided better between Randians and non-Randians, insofar as Randians see charity as being evil, and non-Randians do not. But libertarians are as hard to categorize as they are to organize, unfortunately. It's like herding cats.
 
How does the NEA contribute to the infrastructure in Illinois or Chicago? Please, enlighten me.

Business is sufficiently distributed throughout the United States that infrastructure in any particular region pertains to prosperity somewhere else.
 
General perception?No,it's the reality I see every day among people I interact with.....All of which happen to be Democrats.

That's what is know as anecdotal evidence -- based on your experience, limited or otherwise, Democrats behave a certain way.

And, Yes, that would be your perception of things.






"Goldman Sachs (GS, Fortune 500), Bank of New York/Mellon (BK, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500), JP Morgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500) and Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500) - all 'mega-banks' that the government forced to take bailout money - say they want to return taxpayer funds "as soon as practical.""


Bankers: Take your TARP money back - Mar. 27, 2009

I heard and read that a number of times, that TARP was 'forced' on big banks. Yet, no one has ever been able to explain exactly how (under which law) they were 'forced' to take money and/or what would have happened if they refused the money. Pressured is different than forced.

Nevertheless, these were no-interest loans. I wish Citibank would give me a no-interest Visa.

My point about 'handouts' -- wealthy corporations get more government freebies and handouts then individuals.

You want to start talking about farm subsidies...
 
Indeed, libertarians are among the least giving of Americans, which is what you would anticipate of people who are constantly arguing laziness and government handouts are the main cause of poverty.

Actually, we figure since we're being robbed to subsidize poverty we're not obligated to do more for them. We insist that people earn their money. People who insist on being useless have no claim on our discretionary funds.
 
I certainly hope every Republican who makes that observation gives generously to charity. I doubt it though.

Republicans only give more to charity because they encompass the evangelical population, whose churches are highly refined charity machines. Republicans outside the social conservative demographic aren't remarkable for their charity. Indeed, libertarians are among the least giving of Americans, which is what you would anticipate of people who are constantly arguing laziness and government handouts are the main cause of poverty.

I do give to church but I also give to veterans and disabled veterans groups.

I also belong to the NRA.

You might find this interesting.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html


From these data, I have constructed two measures of religious participation. First, the group I refer to as “religious” are the respondents that report attending religious services every week or more often. This is 33 percent of the sample. Second, the group I call “secular” report attending religious services less than a few times per year or explicitly say they have no religion. These people are 26 percent of the sample (implying that those who practice their religion occasionally make up 41 percent of the sample). The sccbs asked respondents whether and how much they gave and volunteered to “religious causes” or “non-religious charities” over the previous 12 months. Across the whole population, 81 percent gave, while 57 percent volunteered.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.
 
Last edited:
Who's talking about Jesus? I'm talking about the fundie hypochristians that tarnish the names of intelligent Republicans.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Republican and or Democrat Politicians are intelligent?
 
Business is sufficiently distributed throughout the United States that infrastructure in any particular region pertains to prosperity somewhere else.

Uh-huh. And the NEA accomplishes this, how?
 
No, you're just rendering yourselves utterly irrelevant by ignoring the majority of Americans and shoving your radical leftist agenda down our collective throat.

If the majority of Americans want something they should do the right thing and get politically involved - apathy is the problem.
 
You called republicans intelligent? Its a sign that miracles do happen.
MG_119.gif

Not all Republicans are intelligent, not all Democrats are smart. There are Republicans who I do respect and hod in high intellectual esteem.
 
You support Democrats.

That means you're a socialist. A socialist in denial, perhaps, but a socialist none the less.

:roll: Democrats are no more socialists than Republicans are fascists. Seriously, get a proper understanding of the political spectrum.
 
Which means you support fascism, since "free" markets are government controlled.

Free markets are not government controlled.

:lol: I say "free" in quotes because there really is no such thing as a truly free market. There are regulated markets, and unregulated; either way, the market is limited - at least with the former you can preserve some measure of entrepreneurialism and employee welfare.

Good for you.

Most of us haymakers don't owe society anything. It's what being adult is all about.

We all owe a debt to society; not merely for the millions down the drain rearing you to adulthood, but also by sheer virtue of the fact it provides the means by which to obtain wealth. Wealth does not exist in a vaccum.
 
Its funny, but the people who refer to capitalists as "monkeys" don't have a clue what appropriate regulation is. For some reason, these ignorant people think it means "government control" and other forms of fascism/socialism.

The rest of us recognize that true capitalism is based on limited government to protect the peole from the criminal types of behavior socialism and anarchy naturally produce.

Who's advocating "control"? :lol: Controlled markets are uncompetitive and and stifled.
 
If the majority of Americans want something they should do the right thing and get politically involved - apathy is the problem.

Many people got involved in the last election. The voted for " Change you can believe in". Transparency in government; kick out the lobbyists etc.

How did that go?
 
You don't mean "Enlightenment attitudes", you mean socailist attitudes.

No, actually I'm talking about Enlightenment attitudes such as laicity.

The Constitution of the United States, blatantly pro-freedom and hence anti-socialist, the visible peak of the Englightenment.

:yawn: "Freedom" and the Enlightenment are mutually exclusive.
 
Many people got involved in the last election. The voted for " Change you can believe in". Transparency in government; kick out the lobbyists etc.

How did that go?

Hate to say it, but popularism played a large part in the last election - by involved I mean being educated about it, which popularism does not necessarily entail.
 
Hate to say it, but popularism played a large part in the last election - by involved I mean being educated about it, which popularism does not necessarily entail.

The "new voters" that voted for Obama are the same people that text vote 100 times for American Idol. This last election was nothing more than a glorified American Idol contest.

There wasn't a lick of historical or civics knowledge among most of them.
 
The "new voters" that voted for Obama are the same people that text vote 100 times for American Idol. This last election was nothing more than a glorified American Idol contest.

There wasn't a lick of historical or civics knowledge among most of them.

Likewise? :rofl

Some made an educated choice in their votes, many did not.
 
Likewise? :rofl

Some made an educated choice in their votes, many did not.

Never ran so much as a company or firm. Never introduced a bill in state or federal government. Ran for president on a resume that couldn't fill out a 3x5 index card. Yet he wrote two memoirs about accomplishing nothing.

You're going to have to explain where the "educated" is in that vote.
 
Never ran so much as a company or firm. Never introduced a bill in state or federal government. Ran for president on a resume that couldn't fill out a 3x5 index card. Yet he wrote two memoirs about accomplishing nothing.

You're going to have to explain where the "educated" is in that vote.

To understand that you have to understand the most pressing issue at the election period - the economy. Intelligent people understand the economy runs off confidence, hence the educated decision is to vote for the confidence booster.
 
Never ran so much as a company or firm. Never introduced a bill in state or federal government. Ran for president on a resume that couldn't fill out a 3x5 index card. Yet he wrote two memoirs about accomplishing nothing.

You're going to have to explain where the "educated" is in that vote.
Don't disagree with your intended point, but you're confusing education and experience. Obama is very educated, but he's never done anything that would qualify him to be a good president.
 
To understand that you have to understand the most pressing issue at the election period - the economy. Intelligent people understand the economy runs off confidence, hence the educated decision is to vote for the confidence booster.

And how has that been working out?
 
To understand that you have to understand the most pressing issue at the election period - the economy. Intelligent people understand the economy runs off confidence, hence the educated decision is to vote for the confidence booster.

This election had nothing to do with the economy. It was based solely on skin color, Oprah, and the momentum of a clueless group of people who slept through past elections but wanted to make history, go to a big party, and buy the concert T-shirt.
 
Don't disagree with your intended point, but you're confusing education and experience. Obama is very educated, but he's never done anything that would qualify him to be a good president.

I wasn't referring to Obama. I was referring to her assumption that "educated" people voted for Obama.
 
This election had nothing to do with the economy. It was based solely on skin color, Oprah, and the momentum of a clueless group of people who slept through past elections but wanted to make history, go to a big party, and buy the concert T-shirt.

And you berate others for a lack of historical or civic knowledge.
 
Back
Top Bottom