Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Charity Begins... Where Exactly?

Charity Begins... Where Exactly?
Thread Tools
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 09:35 AM
 
Actually we like movie stars because they tend to be liberals and their high profile means they might influence others to think the same way.
The reason they tend to be liberal is because its their job to put themselves into other people's shoes so they tend to have the empathy that conservatives (and you since you claim not to be one) utterly lack.

Many of them research their parts so they gain greater understanding of people vastly different from those in their immediate neighbourhoods, and they work with a very diverse group of other people so they aren't scared of other cultures, religions, races or gay people.
In short they are a good indicator that when you expose yourself to more of the world instead of holing up in your gun closet watching Fox, liberalism becomes the default view.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 02:17 PM
 
Nah, don't buy it. That doesn't match up with how you (general "you") behave.

Conservatives lack empathy? Yet they tend to donate substantially more to those in need. Yeah, that makes sense. Also, the Right is taking over the Liberal moniker, because the Left abandoned it in their quest for speech control.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 15, 2017, 02:42 PM
 
Those 'in need' to the right being their own church needing a new roof or them needing to help relocate the homeless and minorities out of sight to keep their property values up maybe. Plus they get tax breaks, and they never miss an opportunity to brag about how generous they are. Very empathetic.

Being a champion of free speech just to protect your right to share despicable ideas isn't going to earn (general) you many brownie points either.
Theres a slight chance of the ends justifying the motivation in this instance but when people are more concerned with their rights to discriminate against others than their government trying to destroy the free press it ain't because of empathy at work.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 17, 2017, 03:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Those 'in need' to the right being their own church needing a new roof or them needing to help relocate the homeless and minorities out of sight to keep their property values up maybe. Plus they get tax breaks, and they never miss an opportunity to brag about how generous they are. Very empathetic.
Horseshit, even not counting religious donations, which do an amazing amount of good in the world, they still donate more.

Being a champion of free speech just to protect your right to share despicable ideas isn't going to earn (general) you many brownie points either.
I don't want you (specific you) to ever be the judge of what's "despicable", ever. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and without open discussion bad ideas (like Marxism or white nationalism) only spread.

Theres a slight chance of the ends justifying the motivation in this instance but when people are more concerned with their rights to discriminate against others than their government trying to destroy the free press it ain't because of empathy at work.
We haven't had a "free" press in generations (it's corporate/special interest controlled on the Left and Right), and words don't discriminate, actions do. Words aren't violence and if they do you real harm then you should stay in your safe space. The fact that your first reaction is that people want their free speech to spread discrimination only shows how much damage your way of thinking causes.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2017, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Horseshit, even not counting religious donations, which do an amazing amount of good in the world, they still donate more.
Trying this one again?

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - latimes

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients.
The degree of religious contribution is important, because a 2007 study by Indiana University found that only 10% to 25% of church donations end up being spent on social welfare purposes, of which assistance to the poor is only a subset. In other words, if you think of "giving" as "giving to the poor," a lot of the money donated by conservatives may be missing the target.
Most of the studies regarding charitable giving cite IRS tax returns, which track only giving to non-profits, of which churches are included.

If only 10-25% of donations to churches are going to social welfare, then you have to reduce the total donation by 75-90% to compare a church offering donation to a typical donation to a reputable 501(c)(3) that sends more than 90% of its donations right out the door.

A Republican donating $10 to their church is about as effect as a godless, stingy, heartless liberal donating $2 to Habitat for Humanity or a local food bank.

I'm looking forward to seeing the studies you're citing when you claim that absent church donations, Republicans/conservatives donate more, percentage wise or dollar wise.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2017, 12:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Trying this one again?
Still trying to calling all religious charities "churches"? St Jude's is a "religious" organization too, ya know, so is the Salvation Army. If you tell me that neither of them does much good I'll laugh you off the forums. That article is so shabbily written they should be ashamed, but I know they aren't (because it fits an agenda, it's an attempt to make most people on the Left not look like the non-charitable sods they are).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2017, 02:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Still trying to calling all religious charities "churches"?
Great deflection.

Still waiting for you to cite your sources showing that if donations to a Republican's local church are removed from that person's total charitable giving, his or her total giving would still be larger than Democrats/liberals. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you have nothing to back up your statement.

That article is so shabbily written they should be ashamed
What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like you're trying to attack the source without actually addressing the content of the works cited, or providing counter citations of your own.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2017, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Great deflection.
It's called a retort, not surprisingly you don't know the difference. You and the article writer wrongfully assume that donations to a religious charity automatically means it's a church. His sources are shit and the only people buying into his narrative are people like you who are only looking to confirm their bias.

What does that have to do with anything? Sounds like you're trying to attack the source without actually addressing the content of the works cited, or providing counter citations of your own.
He's a crappy journalist with an axe to grind, automatically discounting donations to religious charities, just as you do, which only shows what little thought you've given the subject. You dislike churches, likely give very little to charity, and don't have very much respect for those who do, so you look for ways to marginalize the practice. EVEN IF IT WAS 100% to churches, and EVEN IF the churches secretly took all the $$ and used it on hookers and blow, none of that changes the intent of the giver and the belief that they're doing a good and positive thing to help others, and that's at the heart of this entire discussion, empathy. The act of giving alone brings about good and makes people better, more sympathetic.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 18, 2017, 03:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It's called a retort, not surprisingly you don't know the difference. You and the article writer wrongfully assume that donations to a religious charity automatically means it's a church.
...

Still waiting for you to cite your sources showing that if donations to a Republican's local church are removed from that person's total charitable giving, his or her total giving would still be larger than Democrats/liberals. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you have nothing to back up your statement.
He's a crappy journalist with an axe to grind, automatically discounting donations to religious charities, just as you do, which only shows what little thought you've given the subject. You dislike churches, likely give very little to charity, and don't have very much respect for those who do, so you look for ways to marginalize the practice.


EVEN IF IT WAS 100% to churches, and EVEN IF the churches secretly took all the $$ and used it on hookers and blow, none of that changes the intent of the giver and the belief that they're doing a good and positive thing to help others, and that's at the heart of this entire discussion, empathy.
That's not empathy, that's charity. Empathy is something else.

The act of giving alone brings about good and makes people better, more sympathetic.
A starving family arrives at a food bank just as the last donation runs out. I'm sure it will warm their hearts and fill their stomachs to learn about a fine, upstanding Republican that feels very sympathetic after donating money to his local church, of which only 25% made its way to this food bank, which is why it's understocked.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2017, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
...

Hey, you're the one automatically assuming "religious donations" means a church, when it certainly doesn't (again, The Salvation Army is a religious charity, yet certainly not a church). Your article writer doesn't bother to try to find the truth in there and you don't give a damn either, because it fits your agenda that church donations are a waste and counterproductive. Fringe cases where pastors or church leaders line their pockets, or kit out their church, at the expense of charitable works are just that, fringe, and no more plentiful than charities like the Clinton Foundation who rarely help anyone (except the Clintons).

That's not empathy, that's charity. Empathy is something else.
WTF? You need a deep amount of empathy to give to charity. That comment is just weird. Perhaps you've shown so little of both in your life that you don't understand the dynamic between them?

A starving family arrives at a food bank just as the last donation runs out. I'm sure it will warm their hearts and fill their stomachs to learn about a fine, upstanding Republican that feels very sympathetic after donating money to his local church, of which only 25% made its way to this food bank, which is why it's understocked.
Which is still 25% more than the Clintons. However, since that's just a baseless anecdote...
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 06:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Hey, you're the one automatically assuming "religious donations" means a church, when it certainly doesn't (again, The Salvation Army is a religious charity, yet certainly not a church). Your article writer doesn't bother to try to find the truth in there and you don't give a damn either, because it fits your agenda that church donations are a waste and counterproductive. Fringe cases where pastors or church leaders line their pockets, or kit out their church, at the expense of charitable works are just that, fringe, and no more plentiful than charities like the Clinton Foundation who rarely help anyone (except the Clintons).
I wouldn't characterise religious donations as a waste or as counterproductive but they are potential more wasteful and less productive.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
WTF? You need a deep amount of empathy to give to charity. That comment is just weird. Perhaps you've shown so little of both in your life that you don't understand the dynamic between them?
What utterly ridiculous nonsense. Giving to charity can be good for business. Good for your tax return, good for PR. It can be good for your politics or your local standing if you're the sort of person looking to make a good impression on others by having lots of charitable donations to brag about.
Even before he set up his charity for buying self portraits I suspect Donald Trump gave some money to charity. It had nothing to do with empathy though.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Which is still 25% more than the Clintons. However, since that's just a baseless anecdote...
Your obsessive hatred of the Clintons is just as baseless. The Clinton Foundation has given hundreds of millions of dollars to good causes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 09:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Your obsessive hatred of the Clintons is just as baseless. The Clinton Foundation has given hundreds of millions of dollars to good causes.
Influence peddling is a good cause?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 12:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Trying this one again?

Who's more charitable -- conservatives or liberals? - latimes





Most of the studies regarding charitable giving cite IRS tax returns, which track only giving to non-profits, of which churches are included.

If only 10-25% of donations to churches are going to social welfare, then you have to reduce the total donation by 75-90% to compare a church offering donation to a typical donation to a reputable 501(c)(3) that sends more than 90% of its donations right out the door.

A Republican donating $10 to their church is about as effect as a godless, stingy, heartless liberal donating $2 to Habitat for Humanity or a local food bank.

I'm looking forward to seeing the studies you're citing when you claim that absent church donations, Republicans/conservatives donate more, percentage wise or dollar wise.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Still trying to calling all religious charities "churches"? St Jude's is a "religious" organization too, ya know, so is the Salvation Army. If you tell me that neither of them does much good I'll laugh you off the forums. That article is so shabbily written they should be ashamed, but I know they aren't (because it fits an agenda, it's an attempt to make most people on the Left not look like the non-charitable sods they are).
This AGAIN?

The St Vincent De Paul Society and 'St Mary's Food Bank are religious groups; First Way Pregnanacy Center is another, as is Maggie's Place yet are not Churches. The Charity and Development Appeal for each diocese is not "the Church"
Who Gives and Who Doesn't? - ABC News

There are a million ways to give to charity. Toy drives, food drives, school supply drives…telethons, walkathons, and dance-athons.

But just who is doing the giving? Three quarters of American families donate to charity, giving $1,800 each, on average. Of course, if three quarters give, that means that one quarter don't give at all. So what distinguishes those who give from those who don't? It turns out there are many myths about that.

Sioux Falls vs. San Francisco

We assume the rich give more than the middle class, the middle class more than the poor. I've heard liberals care more about the less fortunate, so we assume they give more than conservatives do. Are these assumptions truth, or myth?

To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city -- Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?

Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?

It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.

Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money."

And he says the differences in giving goes beyond money, pointing out that conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood. He says this difference is not about politics, but about the different way conservatives and liberals view government.

"You find that people who believe it's the government's job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away," Brooks says. In fact, people who disagree with the statement, "The government has a basic responsibility to take care of the people who can't take care of themselves," are 27 percent more likely to give to charity.

Rich vs. Poor

The second myth is that the people with the most money are the most generous. You'd think they'd be. After all, the rich should have the most to spare and households with incomes exceeding $1 million (about 7 percent of the population) make 50 percent of all charitable donations.

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Laurie Tanner is one of those people. She says, "I remember a time when honestly, I couldn't afford a gallon of milk for my son. And I had a good friend that stepped in and helped me, and I've never forgotten that."

The United Way helped Vincent Lau when he was a teenager. Now he donates to them. "I'm glad to help, " Lau says.

Workers at the meat packing plant where Lau works make on average around $35,000, yet the Sioux Falls United Way says it gets more contributions of over $500 from employees here than anywhere else.

Another employee at the plant, B.J. Motley, has a wife and four kids to support, but he gives part of his paycheck to charity every week

"My mom always says 'it's always good to give,'" he says. "[I've] got a great family and I've been blessed."

And what about the middle class? Well, while middle-income Americans are generous compared to people in other countries, compared to the rich and the working poor, they give less. "The two most generous groups in America are the rich and the working poor," says Brooks. "The middle class give the least."

The Church Connection

Finally, the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."

And almost all of the people who gave to our bell ringers in San Francisco and Sioux Falls said they were religious or spiritual.

So how did our little test turn out? Tune into a special edition of "20/20," "Cheap in America," to find out.
( Last edited by Chongo; Apr 24, 2017 at 03:08 PM. )
45/47
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 02:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I wouldn't characterise religious donations as a waste or as counterproductive but they are potential more wasteful and less productive.
Yeah, but you're another who seemingly doesn't care about giving to anyone, and just wants the gov't figure it out (which is often like trying to make toast with a blowtorch).

What utterly ridiculous nonsense. Giving to charity can be good for business. Good for your tax return, good for PR. It can be good for your politics or your local standing if you're the sort of person looking to make a good impression on others by having lots of charitable donations to brag about.
Even before he set up his charity for buying self portraits I suspect Donald Trump gave some money to charity. It had nothing to do with empathy though.
When you're also done throwing out fringe cases, and treating them like the status quo to fit your narrative, maybe we can actually touch on the motivations of the vast majority who give to those who are less fortunate and what those actions do for both parties. Tax write-offs are never, ever, as effective as not giving in the first place, that is (yet again) more Hollywood BS. It's like giving out zero interest loans for up to a year, and anyone who has sense knows that's bad for business. It definitely isn't a magical solution to balance the books at the end of a year, as it's portrayed on TV.

Now, the fact charitable donations are good for PR certainly IS a motivation, it's good for the business and it's also good for gaining PR for the charity, but how you can spin it as lacking empathy is crazy without know the minds of the people involved. Since you don't and are only assuming, yet another of your arguments falls apart. The VAST majority of donors have a desire to see people benefit from their gifts, they feel empathy for their plight and want to help. The only "ridiculous nonsense" here is from you and those like you, and frankly, how you turned out to be this way truly baffling.

Your obsessive hatred of the Clintons is just as baseless. The Clinton Foundation has given hundreds of millions of dollars to good causes.
No, they said they have, or have announced they will, but like with the Haiti debacle, what they say and do are very different things. As has been pointed out, at best they're one of the least efficient charitable organizations in existence, and at worst, well: Dinesh D’Souza on the Clinton Foundation
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 04:50 PM
 
Hey, you're the one automatically assuming "religious donations" means a church, when it certainly doesn't
Hey, I'm not. To quote myself (for the second time now):

Still waiting for you to cite your sources showing that if donations to a Republican's local church are removed from that person's total charitable giving, his or her total giving would still be larger than Democrats/liberals. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you have nothing to back up your statement.
My point exists outside of the fact that non-church religious charities exist, and I've made it clear that you have no data to back up your point, only your hopes and dreams. And now we have Chongo joining in with another legendary copy-paste job while completely failing to address the issue I posed (three times now!).

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Fringe cases where pastors or church leaders line their pockets, or kit out their church, at the expense of charitable works are just that, fringe,
You brought this up, not me. Nowhere did I talk about hypocritical clergy or crooked leaders. That has nothing to do with what I've been saying, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up now, maybe you're still trying to distract yourself from the fact that you can't prove your own point.

WTF? You need a deep amount of empathy to give to charity. That comment is just weird.
I'm at a loss for words here - charitable donations can be made for any number of reasons, empathy being but one. "I've put myself in your shoes and can understand in a deep way what you're going through and how you feel" can be completely detached from tossing a $20 in the collection bucket.

Perhaps you've shown so little of both in your life that you don't understand the dynamic between them?
You can continue trying to attack me, but I know what's on my tax returns and I don't pretend to be anything else on the internet. Here's a fun challenge - why don't you share with the class a time that you displayed a deep amount of empathy?

Which is still 25% more than the Clintons. However, since that's just a baseless anecdote...
It wasn't an anecdote, it was a made up scenario to help make a point.
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 24, 2017, 07:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Yeah, but you're another who seemingly doesn't care about giving to anyone, and just wants the gov't figure it out (which is often like trying to make toast with a blowtorch).
An elected government should be more trustworthy when it comes to distributing funds than religious groups or individual donors, many of which have a number of prejudicial issues with certain demographics.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
When you're also done throwing out fringe cases, and treating them like the status quo to fit your narrative, maybe we can actually touch on the motivations of the vast majority who give to those who are less fortunate and what those actions do for both parties.
The fringe case I threw out wasn't relevant to this discussion so neither is your dismissal of it.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Now, the fact charitable donations are good for PR certainly IS a motivation, it's good for the business and it's also good for gaining PR for the charity, but how you can spin it as lacking empathy is crazy without know the minds of the people involved. Since you don't and are only assuming, yet another of your arguments falls apart. The VAST majority of donors have a desire to see people benefit from their gifts, they feel empathy for their plight and want to help. The only "ridiculous nonsense" here is from you and those like you, and frankly, how you turned out to be this way truly baffling.
Its hilarious that you can be so skeptical of an 'A' rated global charity while implying that every company in the world that gives to charity is doing so for purely noble reasons even as they rape the environment and exploit slave labour to turn their profit machines. But they wouldn't donate to charity just to get some good press, of course not. Thats a step too far.


Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, they said they have, or have announced they will, but like with the Haiti debacle, what they say and do are very different things. As has been pointed out, at best they're one of the least efficient charitable organizations in existence, and at worst, well: Dinesh D’Souza on the Clinton Foundation
As mentioned above it seems to be a respected charity according to reputable watchdogs.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/ind...ry&orgid=16680
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Apr 24, 2017 at 07:35 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 05:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'm at a loss for words here
Incorrect, you're still spewing idiocy at an alarming rate. More accurately, you're at a loss for cogent thought, like other dyed-in-the-wool regressive ideologues around here (fortunately you guys don't make up the whole membership), and a complete waste of effort. Why anyone with sense tries to help you guys is beyond me.

You can continue trying to attack me
"OMG, you're attacking me!1!!" Wow, nothing gets by you, does it?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 09:30 AM
 
Wait, someone is trying to help someone here?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Actually we like movie stars because they tend to be liberals and their high profile means they might influence others to think the same way.
The reason they tend to be liberal is because its their job to put themselves into other people's shoes so they tend to have the empathy that conservatives (and you since you claim not to be one) utterly lack.

Many of them research their parts so they gain greater understanding of people vastly different from those in their immediate neighbourhoods, and they work with a very diverse group of other people so they aren't scared of other cultures, religions, races or gay people.
In short they are a good indicator that when you expose yourself to more of the world instead of holing up in your gun closet watching Fox, liberalism becomes the default view.
Like this?
Actresses' Role in Farm Issue Stirs Criticism - latimes
WASHINGTON — Three actresses who played distressed farm wives are being brought to Capitol Hill by House Democrats in an attempt to revive interest in the farm crisis--but there is some unease about having wealthy stars speak for real-life troubled farmers.

Jessica Lange, Sissy Spacek and Jane Fonda are scheduled to testify Monday before the House Democrats' farm task force on the emotional toll of the financial stress experienced by farm families--something akin to their roles in "Country," "The River" and "The Dollmaker," respectively.

But the session already is provoking some criticism on Capitol Hill over whether such a publicity stunt might trivialize the very real problems of farmers.

Rep. Tony Coelho (D-Merced), who used his show-business connections to help arrange the event, said the actresses have every right to testify before Congress on the farm crisis.



White House 'Actor'

"They probably have a better understanding of the problems of agriculture than the actor in the White House," Coelho said.

But other than Coelho, few would claim more than passing knowledge of the event.

The Agriculture Committee distanced itself from the plan, saying it did not have the panel's official sanction. A House Democratic Caucus staff member said the caucus had little to do with arrangements.

A Republican Agriculture Committee member, Rep. Pat Roberts of Kansas, questioned the need for such a session and said he feared it might be "counterproductive."

"Apparently we're going to play 'Hollywood Squares' in the Agriculture Committee," Roberts said.

In recent years in Congress, actor Jack Klugman, who played a medical examiner in the series "Quincy," has advocated support for development of drugs to treat rare diseases. And Ed Asner, who played newspaper editor Lou Grant, testified on behalf of the Freedom of Information Act.
Lange, Spacek, Fonda : 3 Hollywood Actresses Relate Farmers' Plight - latimes
WASHINGTON — Three movie stars who played distressed farm wives offered sometimes tearful testimony to congressional Democrats today about the emotional toll being exacted by America's agriculture crisis.

"It is heartbreaking to witness their anguish as they watch their lives being stripped away," Jessica Lange, who starred in the film "Country," said through tears as she spoke to a dozen Democratic congressmen on the party's House farm task force.

Lange was joined by Sissy Spacek, who produced and starred in "The River," and Jane Fonda, who developed and played the title role in the television film "The Dollmaker." Both films were about stresses facing farm families.

While Rep. Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), the panel chairman, said "our purpose is not political," the event had partisan overtones: No Republican members were invited, it was sponsored by the party's House fund-raising apparatus and Daschle is frequently mentioned as a promising Democratic Senate candidate in 1986.


Feeling of Failure

Lange said she had spent "countless hours" in recent years talking with farmers about the effects of crushing debt, low crop prices and plummeting land values that have brought the worst farm financial crisis in decades.

"They are being made to feel and made to believe they have failed," she told the group. "Failed their families, their heritage, their country and they have failed their land."

Fonda accused President Reagan of practicing "a double standard" that offers more in subsidies to defense contractors than to farmers and better breaks to those who invest in farming as a tax shelter than to those for whom it is their livelihood.

"The reason we are here is to underscore the gravity of the crisis that is leading to the bankruptcy, humiliation and banishment of farmers from their lands at a rate not seen since my father made 'The Grapes of Wrath,' " she said, a reference to the film about the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

'Cruel Punishment'

"As actresses whose work is to identify with what is most human, we cannot confine ourselves to the screen while the cruel and unusual punishment of farmers grinds on," Fonda said.

Spacek, who lives on a farm near Charlottesville, Va., said she feared that "our largest and most vital industry is disintegrating. It is not the marginal producers, speculators or bad managers that are being squeezed out, but the solid core of our agriculture which is threatened."

A Republican member of the House Agriculture Committee, Rep. Pat Roberts of Kansas, dismissed the event as not helping in the difficult task before Congress of writing new long-term farm legislation to replace the law that expires Sept. 30.

"I don't have time, as much as I would like to, to play 'Hollywood Squares,' " Roberts told a reporter.
Their solution? Was it more/less government intervention or getting charities involved?

BTW, Daschle did run successfully for Senate in 1986.
45/47
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 11:03 AM
 
Welcome back!
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 04:47 PM
 
I'll just leave this here as a reminder that everyone whose argument relies 100% on the existence of this data has yet to provide this data.

Still waiting for you to cite your sources showing that if donations to a Republican's local church are removed from that person's total charitable giving, his or her total giving would still be larger than Democrats/liberals. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you have nothing to back up your statement.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 25, 2017, 06:43 PM
 
45/47
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 26, 2017, 10:09 AM
 
Oh come on. The ONE time you don't copy and paste a huge wall of text is the ONE time I'm asking you to do that.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:25 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,