Slashdot Mirror
'Cards Against Humanity' Gives Out $1000 Checks (nbcchicago.com)
An anonymous reader writes: In November "Cards Against Humanity" announced "a complicated holiday promotion" where people paid $15 for six surprises in December. (For the first surprise in the Cards Against Humanity Saves America promotion, "we purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.") The second surprise was the launch of a new podcast filled with positive news, and for the third surprise, they're redistributing the money people paid to join the event. "Most of our subscribers (about 140,000 people) got nothing today — they could have it worse. The next 10,000 subscribers received a full $15 refund of their Cards Against Humanity Saves America purchase. Finally, the poorest 100 people received a check for $1,000, paid for by everyone else."
A new web page shares stories from the grateful participants, and explains the site's careful methodology for determining who needed the $1,000 checks the most. ("We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They'll be fine.") It argues that wealth inequality is the biggest issue in the world, but "Our lawyers advised against our first choice — a campaign to eat all the rich people and live in their houses — so we settled for something more achievable."
A new web page shares stories from the grateful participants, and explains the site's careful methodology for determining who needed the $1,000 checks the most. ("We excluded all Canadians. They already have universal healthcare. They'll be fine.") It argues that wealth inequality is the biggest issue in the world, but "Our lawyers advised against our first choice — a campaign to eat all the rich people and live in their houses — so we settled for something more achievable."
What do they think about that?
+1
>make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.
you're not helping.
Why don't you use it to create something instead of just being an obstinate prick about everything trump.
to send them 15 bucks, so i missed out on the thousand. gee, thanks, but the 'poorest' didn't get the check.
On the one hand, I read the stories about where they're going to spend the money, and wonder why more aren't socking some of it away. There's people in Congress who will be raining shit on you for at least the next three years! (Face it, the seats in play for the midterms aren't likely to produce meaningful change even if things go the Democrats' way.)
On the other hand, I'm glad to see that the first thought for many of the recipients was who else they could make happy with it. Hope for humanity yet.
On the gripping hand, I figure everyone's got value for money already out of their $15. Gifts, entertainment, and a smug sense of moral superiority. That's what Christmas is about, ain't it?
How otherwise rational and intelligent people, with all the technology and their care-free lives devoid of any real conflict or hardship, can act so naieve and childish.
I'm sure even during the Salem Witch Trials people conducted themselves with more dignity.
It sounds like a newfangled Ponzi Scheme.
That anyone who gave $15 to such a group was, almost by definition, not 'poor'.
This really looks like a big pile of 'how can we virtue signal the strongest', using other peoples money just to make it worse.
I must actually listen to their 'positive news' podcast, to get a better handle on what they consider positive - I am guessing its just more self-ego-stroking from their self-selected echo chambers, but hey, I could be wrong.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
None of their efforts may 'save America' directly, but they're serving as an example of what should be done on a broader scale. It also reminds me of 'protest theater', where a protest is turned into a marvel designed to garner attention. Good on em.
Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
But how does this affect Bitcoin?
Redistribution
It'd be far easier to spend that money on an increased payout (such as $10k for the same 100 people) by forgoing the land expenses.
"we purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall."
Then the wall would end up being built around that plot, becoming prohibitively expensive to use.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
This SJW bullshit is like a cancer, making all of my favorite sites political.
Why is this story here? News for nerds? Nope. Stuff that matters? Nope.
BTW, Max Temkin, co-creator of Cards Against Humanity is facing multiple allegations of rape. He uses his wealth to threaten to sue his victims.
That comment about Canada, is actually what concerns me most about liberal politics.
They are poor people all over the world who are suffering. Some may not have the resources to manage the bureaucracy of a government healthcare system. This indicates if they have services available they will be fine, which is far from the truth. And sounds like we are trying to dump all the worlds problems on policy changes vs caring about other people.
Rules and policies are more or less are designed to take the poor people out of our view vs doing anything to help them.
Now we need good safety nets and protection policy to help keep people out of poverty but we need people to be engaged to the problems that will still exist.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
You already paid him, that's what's important.
Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
> Even Wil Wheaton supported Max Tempkin
You mean Wil "cheated on his wife with young actresses" Wheaton? I'm shocked!
It's so absurd. All these massive virtue signallers who accuse others of all kinds of vile things turn out to be the ones doing them. And yet they are heralded as the "good guys".
Just as there are signs in Arizona effectively declaring miles of land to be "at your own risk", one could easily get around the parcel by building around the land. No different than building around a mountain or river.
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
This is the best way to thwart a government. Non-violent, meaningful action works very well against tyrannical governments. History has two big prominent examples: Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Any actions that we can take to stop the Tump Bully Machine are good ones.
How is this any more communist then wealthy republicans donating to their causes?
Actually the republicans donate more money then democrats do, often to help the poor and charities.
It’s their money they can use it to buy a solid gold toilet or they can buy land to try to stop the government from spending money on a symbol to say we don’t like brown people.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Cards against humanity should change their name to Project Mayhem
I'm not sure they've really thought this through.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
At least they know and admit their organization works against humanity. What a bunch of idiots.
>Actually the republicans donate more money then democrats do, often to help the poor and charities.
really where are the numbers ? And relatively more or absolutely more ?
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
My alternative facts say this is the first post. All my friends say it is the firstiest Post they have ever seen. That rocket man is one bad hombre. There has never been a more fristy post.
#MAGA #TRUMP2018
Liberals would rather have massive Latino immigration rather than leveling the playing field with African and Asian immigration, who are mostly following the legal path. The wall would give more equal access to all, liberals don't want 'all', they was illegals living in the shadows so they can run their fear campaign.
All you can see is liberal Troll Tags :-P (Guess we know who runs/own this site)
This is what happens when you try to play politics instead of minding your own fucking business.
I toss you into the toilet.
In a democracy, politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
Stephan
Liberals would rather have massive Latino immigration rather than leveling the playing field with African and Asian immigration, who are mostly following the legal path.
Have you been looking to Europe lately, where they have exactly that?
Do you REALLY think that's better?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You mean the ones crying the loudest about morals are also the worst offenders? It's almost like they're just like the right wing religious nutjobs that get caught cheating on their wife with some guy in a public toilet...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In a "he said, she said" situation, how come "I feel like I was assaulted" is more valid than "I feel like I didn't assault you"?
A pure democracy will never work as there will always be way too many idiots wanting to tinker with the engine of civilization. They have no idea what a intake valve or piston is for, and they have protests about the unfair treatment of the bacteria trapped in the air filter.
It really was a peach to the owners to get free advertising and increase sales. That's a very sweet and charming thing to do.
Oh wait, aren't we supposed to hate corporations? What a terrible progressive dilemma
Are we shaming homosexuals now? Trying to keep up with progressive values is so confusing these days.
Even the Berlin wall, with its armed guards and minefields, couldn't keep East Germans put of West Germany (Well, really keep them in East Germany). Walls don't work, and neither will Trumps.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Um, that's idiotic. I am totally against building a wall, but the Berlin wall was extremely effective. But Germany is tiny compared to what Trump is proposing.
A pure democracy will never work as there will always be way too many idiots wanting to tinker with the engine of civilization. They have no idea what a intake valve or piston is for, and they have protests about the unfair treatment of the bacteria trapped in the air filter.
Let me rephrase for people who prefer non-constructively narrow readings: In a republic ("if you can keep it", with apologies to Ben Franklin), politics is every fucking citizen's fucking business. Not minding it leads to Trump and similar catastrophes, controlled by those that do mind....
Stephan
Because as Lena Dunham said, we always believe the accusers in these situations.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
So how long does he need to wait before he is allowed to do anything else? Forever? Until he admits he did what ever she says regardless of what actually happened?
You can't bitch about the government not having enough money to pay for healthcare, and then in the same breath proudly claim you're doing things to cost the government more money.
FAQ: I’m poor and I’m mad that I didn’t get any money.
"Our bad. We had to guess how much money you had with limited data. The US government actually knows how much money you have and has trillions of dollars to redistribute. Why don’t you get mad at the US government?"
Here we see an idiot in its native habitat.
A quick search suggests you are confusing wil wheaton with joss whedon.
You can read it without logging in here: http://webcache.googleusercont...
Her response here: http://webcache.googleusercont...
I don't think we can draw any conclusions from this. She offers no details and no-one else has come forward with similar experiences or corroboration. Since she has chosen to not take the matter up with any authority and Tempkin has decided not to sue, we will likely never get any investigation or facts.
This is why it is so important that those in authority are approachable, that they believe those who come to them, and that they handle the matter properly. Otherwise this is what we get, court of the internet trials with literally zero evidence.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Liberals would rather have massive Latino immigration rather than leveling the playing field with African and Asian immigration, who are mostly following the legal path.
Have you been looking to Europe lately, where they have exactly that?
Do you REALLY think that's better?
Yes I have looked at Europe and it's not like that at all. Hundreds of thousands of "refugees" are coming in each year and public services are struggling to bear the weight, even in socialist paradises like Sweden where firefighters and ambulances need police escorts to even enter some neighborhoods.
+1
Same as it ever was! https://www.facebook.com/thelegacyofmusic/videos/1942019305815892/
If youâ(TM)re that hard up for money why waste $15 on a convoluted expansion to a card game.
Bonus points were given to people who smoke because thereâ(TM)s a correlation between smoking and being poor. Unsurprising thereâ(TM)s a correlation; itâ(TM)s an expensive habit that provides no value to the smoker.
So letâ(TM)s redistribute money to people who will frivolously spend it on cancer sticks and card games knowing they have bigger problems. Makes sense.
Who runs this company the DNC? I guess they don't care about selling to half the country. They should change their name, "Cards against conservatism".
Those are some serious moobs.
The National Health Service in the UK is far from perfect, and in fact is in serious trouble as many of the foreign staff it relies on are leaving due to Brexit... But none the less, I'd take it over any private system in the world.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
>Actually the republicans donate more money then democrats do, often to help the poor and charities.
really where are the numbers ? And relatively more or absolutely more ?
Better yet, what's the effectiveness of their charitable spending.? And what's the spending really on?
Because you know, those Conservatives often have their charities being less than perfect.
Not to mention that Hobby Lobby business. Which the usual suspects defended.
but we know now from Weinstien, Franken, Laurer, and all the rest that the loudest voices for women are always the worst offenders.
You mean the ones crying the loudest about morals are also the worst offenders? It's almost like they're just like the right wing religious nutjobs that get caught cheating on their wife with some guy in a public toilet...
Which goes to show that on all sides of the political spectrum, the sorts of people who get into politics, especially national politics, are possessed of a type of narcissistic self-superiority that exempts them form the very things they try to force on others.
There are plenty of good hard-working liberals who just think that what they do, who they marry, and who immigrates into the US shouldn't really trouble the government very much, just like there are plenty of hard-working conservatives who think that where they go to church, how many guns they own, and how much money they make shouldn't trouble the government very much.
But then you have liberals who advocate taxing the "rich" (which is easy for people like the Clintons to advocate, for example, when the bulk of their money goes through their foundation, and also easy for people with family to advocate since the taxes under discussion always on income, not on wealth), or granting legal status to illegal immigrants (all the while taking advantage of their illegal status to pay them below poverty wages and otherwise take advantage of them). And you also have conservatives crusading for morality while living secret lives awash in the very sins they publicly condemn, and claiming to want to reward hard-working people while perpetuating a crony-capitalist oligarchy.
Either way, the point is that it is par for the course for politicians in general. I am not sure how to fix it, but term limits might be a good start. And not just term limits on a particular office, but something like a 10 year limit on serving in any federal elected office and the same thing for state-level office. I'm not sure what else might work, but as the electorate we have to do something.
We have to quit with the "this person is despicable but I am going to support them anyway because of how much worse I think the other party's person is." That crazy thing about the US 2016 presidential election is that it seems like there were more people voting for Clinton to vote against Trump and more people voting for Trump to vote against Clinton than people that voted in actual support of the candidate for whom they cast their vote. Think about what that says of our political system and our society.
...of the very, very fine line between clever and stupid.
-Styopa
A while back I heard about RollingJubilee.org. They purchase debt on the secondary market (did you know there is a secondary market for individual debt? I didn't know that before hearing of this group) for a small fraction of its face value and then forgive it. This includes lots of student loan and medical debt in particular.
It so happens that this ends up being about as non-biased in its selection of debt as you can be, as well - the debts are bundled (like mortgages) which has the result of the group never knowing whose debt they are purchasing when they purchase it (until after they have it). Have you ever had a collections agency call you about an overdue debt? At that point your debt has already been sold at least once on a secondary market. This group comes in after that point to buy the debts that the first collections agencies have given up on. These debts are still valid when they buy them; they are legally entitled to collect on their full value if they want but instead they contact the debtors and forgive them.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
It is not that the US does not 'have' enough money for healthcare. The US Govt, just prioritizes healthcare for its citizens less than it prioritizes, say, defence, tax cuts, naval exercises and so on.
Additionally, though govt money sounds like a huge pile of money, these are smaller piles of money and if a smaller pile is unused then, it does not automatically get used for other actions. So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare - and similarly other piles cannot be used to build the wall. So making the govt spend money on legal issues will definitely reduce the money available to build the wall.
So you can bitch about the govt not spending money on healthcare, and waste the money they spend on wrong priorities
"Walls" actually work pretty well against illegal immigration, whether it's an actual wall, a moat, patrolling guards, coast guard, or something else. They just don't work 100%. This is the same kind of argument people use against improving highways because "the traffic jam will just move a couple of kilometers down the road". By that logic, you could just open up the border and let everyone in.
"Walls don't work" is a meaningless slogan. Instead assess how big an issue Latino immigration actually is, and what impact Trump's wall will actually make compared to what's currently on the border. Not a lot, probably.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Their goal was to prevent the wall being built, saving billions of dollars. If they can delay long enough Trump might run out of time or political capital to do it.
Or did you think Mexico was paying for it?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is why it is so important that those in authority are approachable, that they believe those who come to them, and that they handle the matter properly. Otherwise this is what we get, court of the internet trials with literally zero evidence.
Now you know DNS-and-Bind only applies this reasoning to conservative, right-wing, individuals, who are properly deserving of a complete exoneration in all circumstances because any and all complaints about their malfeasance are clearly and solely manufactured deceits from the vile and dishonest left-wing traitors who hate America.
We know this is true, because of DNS-and-Bind's support for Roy Moore himself. DNS-and-Bind reasons that Moore's edifice to the Ten Commandments is a sacred object, and if it were in any way at all possibly offensive to God, then surely he would have been struck down. Instead? He will be elected to the highest of offices with the full and complete support of all right-thinking Alabamians. And also Donald Trump. Would God let a man be so prosperous and wealthy if he were not righteous and just? Of course not! No way about it. Thus it is the will of the Almighty that he rule us with his divine right! It is the mandate of Heaven.
Now bow down and show your obeisance, you godless heathen AmiMoJo, you are clearly contemptible, but if you grovel sufficiently, it is possible the infinite Mercy will spare you the eternal damnation you so richly deserve.
Do I understand ... pimping narco.MEX border-jumping rapists & murderers is your view of patriotic behavior ? Then hypothetically if somebody smash-yo-face many will view that as encouraging freedom-of-speech. Imagine hows it feel without teeth to chew ? See how that works palsy ?
Which aaaa... Was consensual...
lol captcha content': consent
"eat the rich..."
you mean, like the founders of CAH, who are basically millionaires now?
So you can bitch about the govt not spending money on healthcare, and waste the money they spend on wrong priorities
You can, but it's still pretty hypocritical. Government services cost money. If there's less of it to go around because you're purposely creating road blocks to quash initiatives that are more than likely going through, there will be less money to go around after those initiatives are completed, or become a continuous sunk cost. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
"Things women do lie about: what they ate for lunch. Things women don't lie about: rape."
-- Lena Dunham, Aug 5, 2017
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I feel you spend too much time on this website. Do you have any hobbies?
Yes, we do see you in your native habitat, idiot.
But then you have liberals who advocate taxing the "rich" (which is easy for people like the Clintons to advocate, for example, when the bulk of their money goes through their foundation, and also easy for people with family to advocate since the taxes under discussion always on income, not on wealth), or granting legal status to illegal immigrants (all the while taking advantage of their illegal status to pay them below poverty wages and otherwise take advantage of them). And you also have conservatives crusading for morality while living secret lives awash in the very sins they publicly condemn, and claiming to want to reward hard-working people while perpetuating a crony-capitalist oligarchy.
Odd that you give such short shrift to the Conservative hypocrites. Let me help you by pointing out Donald Trump's scam with his foundation, or the accusations that Trump hired illegal laborers while actually taking advantage of their status to pay them below poverty wages and otherwise take advantage of them.
There's plenty of others, but you really should make more of a conscious effort if you're going to want to appear to actually be even-handed.
Either way, the point is that it is par for the course for politicians in general. I am not sure how to fix it, but term limits might be a good start. And not just term limits on a particular office, but something like a 10 year limit on serving in any federal elected office and the same thing for state-level office. I'm not sure what else might work, but as the electorate we have to do something.
Sorry man, we tried term limits. Didn't work.
You're going about it wrong. Doesn't matter if they're in there for a year, or for life, the problem is still the problem, of who and what they are. What you want to do, is instead take away some of the tools for exploitation, such as voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering.
We have to quit with the "this person is despicable but I am going to support them anyway because of how much worse I think the other party's person is." That crazy thing about the US 2016 presidential election is that it seems like there were more people voting for Clinton to vote against Trump and more people voting for Trump to vote against Clinton than people that voted in actual support of the candidate for whom they cast their vote. Think about what that says of our political system and our society.
The Simpsons were telling you that back in the 1990s. Why didn't you listen? Of course, you could have learned about that even further back in American history, like with the Election of 1876, the Election of 1860, or the Crooked Bargain that resulted in 1824. Not to mention the whole business with Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.
Remember the Naturalization Act of 1798? No? How about the other Alien and Sedition Acts?
Huh.
Yeah, let's toss the presumption of innocence, any woman pointing a finger at a man and saying "HE RAPED ME" should be grounds to lock the man up for life, constitution et al be damned! Because women don't ever lie about being raped, period!
Keep fighting for our country to be turned into a toilet. Keep being derogatory toward OUR Commander-in-Chief. Never in my life have I witnessed such hate from people who say they promoting good. All people, places, and ANYONE who dares not stand for our national anthem are nothing. You are a part of the problem as this promotion now is.
Good thing this is a republic then!
As long as the two things are unrelated, why not? The government does it to you!
We taxed this thing, because we don't want you to do it (more money for us, yay!). We can't afford this other thing.
It's exactly the same thing, but from the other side. The government doesn't do one thing, you can support part of what it does, and try to obstruct other parts.
> Because as Lena Dunham said, we always believe the accusers in these situations.
Well I, for one, don't. Especially when they come out of the woodwork in droves.
https://www.theroot.com/white-woman-who-lied-about-being-kidnapped-raped-by-3-1797302783
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/25/jemma-beale-lied-rape-sentenced-flawed-system-allegations-sentenced
https://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/12/13-women-who-lied-about-being-raped-and-why-they-did-it/
Shall I continue?
Socialist paradises like Sweden worked great when they were a Northern European monoculture. Embracing the cult of multiculturalism isn't working too great.
Also, I used the term Socialist loosely. When Sweden was much more Socialist than it is today, it was experiencing many of the problems that go hand in hand with socialism. It's only as they liberalized over the last several decades that they became a paradise. In many ways they are less socialist than the US. They are at best (or worst) a mixed economy, not socialist.
That comment about Canada, is actually what concerns me most about liberal politics.
Total disregard for all foreigners is not liberal politics, it's American politics.
People got Trump because they wanted someone to deal with the mexican migration problem.
Jews, man.
Good thing this is a republic then!
See my other reply, but also see e.g.
But then, these are all dead white men, so what do they know!
Stephan
"we purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.")
Slashdot has become the toilet.into which all manner of SJW shit stories have been dropped like a deuce from Fat Bastard in Austin Powers
WTF?
People got Trump because, and I quote:
"I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove, so it could be somebody else."
The wall is going to be built.
No it isn't. Parts might get done, but no-way is a wall along the whole border going to be built. Trump hasn't got enough support in his own party to get it done. Quite probably he'll be impeached in the next year, anyway, and once he is out of office, the whole idea of the wall will be abandoned.
I could be wrong about the impeachment, the evidence to do it seems to be there, but I don't know if the political will to do it is. In any case the wall won't be complete in his first term, unless he manages a second term, whoever follows him will drop the plan.
In Germany, for one, it is _impossible_ to find work without papers. Because the fines for the employers are high five figures for each illegal worker, plus very close monitoring for years after.
Europe doesn't have a fucking clue. They have only just _started_ to see flows on the scale the USA has had for decades. As you say, those flows are crashing the system.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
A border wall with Mexico isn't a wall against a military assault, it's a wall against illegal migrants and drug smugglers. Can such walls work? You bet. They presented a big obstacle to the millions trying to flee from the socialist East Bloc into the capitalist West. That's why people trying to escape socialism hid in car trunks or even built hot air balloons.
Of course, before building a wall, the US should do what other civilized nations do, which is to ensure every American can easily prove their citizenship and requiring proof of legal presence in the US for government benefits, employment, schooling, housing, taxation, and banking.
It didn't work in 2002, 2008, 2010, or 2014 when the Federal government used eminent domain as spelled out in the Constitution to take the land along the border where it was building fences.
All they're really doing is tricking people into making sure than the profit from the land purchase goes to these guys rather than the people that actually live there.
Whoever 'hacked' the DNC and Hillary is a hero!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Gift them the wall, require they pay for ongoing maintenance. That'll teach em.
Here you go. A few interesting takeaways:
1. Conservative households tend to make about 6% less than Liberal households, yet give 30% more to charity.
2. There are more "big donors" (those who give over $1000) among Conservatives than Liberals
3. In the 2012 Presidential election, the top 15 charitable States all voted for the GOP; the bottom 15 overwhelmingly (13 of 15) voted for the Democrats.
4. Religious people (usually more on the Conservative side of things) tend to overwhelmingly give to charities as compared to non-religious
5. Married people (who tend to be more conservative on average) give much more than unmarried people
6. The US by far and away is the most charitable nation on Earth
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Charities are often scams on both sides. e.g. The Clinton Global Fund. Why did it's funding go dry the day the bitch lost?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think you're replying to sarcasm, bro.
The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.
The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices. And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.
And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.
Merkel, Soros and their fellow banksters have a mission to destroy the host nation they live in.
Merkel is only a half German. Guess the other half.
How about making terms in Congress akin to jury duty? You get selected and bam! You're in congress for 2 years. Or perhaps not congress but your local city/county/state government. Make it a burden. OR, once someone is elected into office, they don't get paid their salary. They get a house, transportation, clothing, food, basically what you get when you're in the military, and a small monthly stipend. Then, when their term is up, their constituents vote on how well they represented them, an "approval rating" of sorts. That resulting percentage determines what percentage of back pay they receive. The incentive is to represent their constituents and if they manage to get reelected, perhaps tack a bonus on dependent on the difference between the votes they received and the votes the person they beat out receives. I dunno, just off the top of my head here.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
So, that's not a valid viewpoint?
Let me tell you, with all this accusatory sexual assault, I sometimes wonder what would happen if *I* was accused of sexual assault, even though I have done nothing. The only thing I can come up with is: "I'm sorry you thought I sexually assaulted you, but I definitely did not."
No, we're shaming those homosexuals that are shaming homosexuals.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I have no problem there. And I actually also don't have a problem with him getting fucked by some big cocked black guy in his favorite public toilet.
I have a problem with him claiming some moral high ground and spouting bullshit like how fags are going to hell. But I'm sure his god will forgive him, he always does to the real believers, no matter what kind of asshole they really are.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And guess what: That's African and Asians coming in legally.
Again: Wanna trade? Most people here would gladly do so.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Judging by her looks, aardvark?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How about making terms in Congress akin to jury duty?
It would be simpler to just repeal the 17th. That really screwed the citizens.
Have you played Cards Against Humanity? Have you ever thought that maybe there's some humor woven in to their actions?
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Walls work temporarily, but eventually they fail. Look at all the walls of history, no ancient wall marks a modern border.
Can't tell if that's a serious answer...(?)
As above, is this sarcasm?
Well, sure, if you turn your brain off. Or you could recognize that the two issues are very different, and the âoecost moreâ part is intended as a deterrent, not just to take money out of the governmentâ(TM)s pockets.
Things women lie about: saying what they do and do not lie about.
You're in favour of allowing the government to come onto private property and build things against the owner's wishes?
Are you a socialist, or a full-on communist?
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
FTFY, because Trump isn't actually paying for it personally. It's kind of like keying your own car to get back at the dealership.
IANAL but I would think that considering they've announced very publicly the exact reason they bought this land was to block the wall, it makes it much easier for the government case to take it back.
I'm also finding very odd how they are taking all these political stances for some reason, as if a card game where one of the cards is "two midgets shitting in a bucket" is somehow going to be a rallying point for political dissent. Fools and their money I suppose.
...until she doesn't.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
By that logic we shouldn't protest anything the government does because if it doesn't work out just wastes money. Money is clearly the most important thing here, a few million in litigation tops out of the billions being pissed away on this thing.
Or maybe we could go really nuts and claim it's a subsidy to Mexico. A 30ft high wall is a massive stimulus program for 31ft ladder manufacturers south of the border.
Also, well done calling my post retarded. Really adds credibility to your argument-by-Trump "it will definitely happen, and it will be easy" narrative.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
5. Married people (who tend to be more conservative on average) give much more than unmarried people
Couples give more than singles. Color me surprised.
Because as Lena Dunham said, we always believe the woman in these situations.
Fixed that for ya.
This is the most logical post I have seen on Slashdot in a while.
We already have too many deeply stupid people in Congress, and your plan wouldn't improve things. On the plus side, the moral character of the general population is probably superior to most members of Congress, and 2 years limits the amount of time they'd have to become corrupted.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Disagree
Multiculturalism works as long as there is equity in representation. That never happens in practice because immigrants all group together in an enclave and then undermine the countryâ(TM)s stability when the wonâ(TM)t learn the language, obey the laws, or put their religion above their citizenship. The end result is that the country breaks up.
The United States is rapidly heading towards the pacific coast breaking away from the mainland, and the Bible Belt breaking away from the the New England and New York region. That will be the next civil war.
If you ran for the office, I would vote for you.
No one has ever accused the American government of not having enough money to pay for healthcare.
The American government hasn't allocated enough money to pay for healthcare.
That's a very VERY big difference and the amount they allocate has nothing to do with how much this comical protest will cost the government.
I see that somehow donations to religious institutions count for 39% of those donations. sounds a lot like the buyout of indulgentia in the late middle ages.
Does that 30% more to "charity" include tithes and other donations to their church? If so, then they are buying their places in heaven and donating to their local social club. A bit self serving in that type of charity.
Puhlease, the Berlin Wall was basically 99.9999% effective. That is the definition of "Walls do work".
And today the wall at the DMZ on the Korean peninsula is just as effective or better than the Berlin wall. By your statements you are showing your ignorance.
I don't think you have ever tried a private system. As a sufferer of a disease that requires the occasional MRI I can get one in about one weeks time. My fellow suffering friends in Britain who have the NHS system covering them have to wait 4 months for an MRI. There is proof that government run healthcare stinks.
This is my favorite dopey right-wing trope: "It really screws the citizens to allow them to vote on their own senators."
By your logic, the best thing that could happen "for the citizens" is to have all members of congress and the president chosen by a panel of Breitbart editors.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I generally believe the accuser because that is the way the world is. My problem is what seems to be the definition and sexual assault and the over reaction to it.
I am sure that the woman felt unconformable for a few seconds. Who hasn't but when has feeling slightly uncomfortable been justification for ruining someones life.The appropriate response is to tell them to get lost.
I also believe we are making women out to be much weaker, and stupider than they really are. Oh I saw a penis, I emotionally scared for life. Or he invited me up to his hotel room for a meeting, I had no idea that he was going to make a move on me. Please which cave where these women brought up in.
I think getting paid $100,000 for a creepy old guy to to wank in front of me is more than adequate compensation.
Yes people should feel unharassed and safe in the workplace, but people also need to express there desire for one another, sometimes that desire will not be reciprocated, there is no need for someones entire life to be ruined over it. It is a dangerous and impossible thing to totally suppress ones sexuality. Eg catholic priest, or you can just stop being homosexual right, its a choice.
We have many greater problems in this world like people starving or being killed by war that we should be outraged about before we start getting outraged about some woman being kissed, or having her bottom squeezed.
The worst offenders of women are rapists and murderers, right? Who did the people you mention (Weinstien, Franken, Laurer) rape or kill? If the answer is 'nobody' (which is the right answer), then your statement is false. Had you added Roy Moore into that list, you had a chance of being right, as he appears, from public statements made both by and against him, to be a pedophile and rapist. The ones that you actually mentioned, however, aren't even close.
AFAIK, you have now called these people rapists and they now have a valid legal case to make against you, which you would lose if they prosecuted (don't worry, you're safe, it won't happen). This is against Slahdot standards, no? Calling people 'rapists' seems like it could have ramifications for Slashdot as well. Illegal acts should not be tolerated on Slashdot, right?
My personal belief is that you are another Eurasian troll, and IHBT. Just in case you aren't, people should know how mentally ill you are. Please seek treatment for your megalomania.
You made this prediction of the future:
The wall is going to be built.
The questions was asked:
did you think Mexico was paying for it
and then you disingenuously said:
that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing
Quite literally, "the wall" is the first thing that you wrote, and the discussion is about money. You were talking about (a) the wall, (b) paying for the wall, and (c) your idiot President has made his thoughts clear already about this wall and where the money was going to come from to build it.
It is clearly and unambiguously directly referencing the conversation that you are currently involved in, and yet you claim it has "nothing to do" with the discussion. You're lying to yourself and to us. You appear embarrassed by comments made by a would-be president that you support, and now you are deliberately lying to attempt to avoid that embarrassment. Shame on you.
Just a sensational promotion to keep this company in the news. Funny how they want to demonize successful people while trying to make themselves successful while rewarding socialist-based prizes. How soon they forget that it was capitalism that allowed them to be in a position to push socialism.
... is still populism, and is not going to get any closer to solving America's problems than Trump's right-wing kind.
You need real politics, the kind where opponents are willing to make deals and trade objectives off against each other. You know, the kind that most Republicans (and many Democrats) now demonize or stigmatize as 'selling out'.
That's the way politics gets things done. That way you can pass real laws and make a real, lasting difference, not just flamboyant gestures that will be reversed next time the government changes. Populism, of any kind, will only turn you against each other.
The US government spends more per capita on healthcare than almost any other nation. Yes, the US government, excluding the private sector.
Per capita what? Per population? Per taxpayer? But what about in terms of healthcare received, or in terms of assessing the costs of healthcare?
Think about the difference. Then cite your sources. I'm sure you realize that hand-waved declarations of vague assertions are not especially persuasive when we know how easy it is to lie with statistics.
The problem with the US healthcare system isn't excessive stinginess by the government, it is excessive costs and excessive prices.
Indeed, among other things, it's lack of coverage. And bankruptcies.
Which isn't caused by the government being stingy, it's because the government isn't being thrifty enough by operating its own healthcare facilities. Oh wait, that's because the government is being made to be stingy under the false pretense of not providing its own healthcare facilities!
And the ACA did nothing to address excessive costs and prices (because drug companies, lawyers, and doctors tend to be big donors), instead it simply tried to force Americans to pay those excessive prices in perpetuity, which ensures that this will never get fixed.
Yes, it didn't have a public health insurance provision, let alone a healthcare provision, but we knew this at the time.
Do you not have any actual recall of the situation?
However, you forget the specific subsidies that did reduce the costs for the poor.
That some of us would have preferred hiring more doctors and providing better medical care directly, well, we didn't get a vote on that, now did we?
So if the money allocated to the border wall is unused, it does not go to healthcare
And by "healthcare", you mean the yachts and estates of wealthy doctors, insurance company executives, and pharmaceutical companies.
Now now, we're told "trickledown> " is essential by the GOP. It's their tax-plan now.
Sorry man, you've got less than you think.
But hey, at least you can get your pills.
Look, you know what's happening is due to the GOP, they're the party that's responsible now. And they're going to do their best job...of filling their own pockets. And baking
It's basically a bad knockoff of the old Steve Jackson game, Illuminati.
Not as funny though.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just wait until you find out that most of the people in prison are Democrats.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And how many of these "charities" are pushing a religious agenda? Giving to groups like Bibles for Missions may count to some as giving to charity, but not to me.
Since supporting your religion of choice is "charitable giving" in the US, nothing you wrote is surprising. Subtract "charitable giving" to religious causes and -- surprise! -- secular and non-secular giving rates are about the same. Now...where do the majority of religious people live, as a percent of a state's total population? In which states do the majority of non-religious people live, as a percentage of total population? Argument skewing with statistics. Fun for everyone!
2. There are more "big donors" (those who give over $1000) among Conservatives than Liberals
4. Religious people (usually more on the Conservative side of things) tend to overwhelmingly give to charities as compared to non-religious
Subtract out church donations, then look at the numbers.
(I should point out that I give large amounts of money to my church. I'd actually like to believe that religious people are more giving overall, but I don't think it's true.)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
That summary is very misleading because you leave out a couple important statistics that suggest why those numbers are that way:
That article goes out of its way to not give the relevant statistics splitting out "religious causes", but it seems pretty likely most, if not all, of the difference between conservatives and liberals charitable giving can be explained by what for any other organization would be a membership fee being officially considered a charitable donation when the organization is a church.
nearly none of the murderers are atheist
Slashdot started up that way. Where were you?
Bruce Perens.
Yeah, the most effective tactic to ending illegal immigration is to arrest the employers who hire them and seize their assets. You'll see a sudden drop in demand when that happens.
It's easy to say that when churches are considered "charities" and the republicans actively court every church goer they can find.
This distortion is clearly evident from your own article, but ignored in your post. 40% of the way down the page is the breakdown, "Religion and Charitable Giving". The church-goers group gives slightly more than the non church goers to secular causes, but they dwarf everything else on the chart with their donations to the church.
Don't get all holier than though about charity when 70% of your "charitable" contributions went to a church.
Charities are often scams on both sides. e.g. The Clinton Global Fund.
Sorry, but the Clinton Global Fund has been assessed as not a scam, nor has its parent entity.
Why did it's funding go dry the day the bitch lost?
Why did the GOP tell so many lies about it?
Sorry HornWumpus, but you've discredited yourself.
You're just too much of a partisan ideologue.
PS:
Increasing the average farm plot size should be a goal.
It is. Of the Corporate Farming Oligarchy.
Stop being an ignorant mouthpiece, at least insist on being an informed one.
Then again, you're obsessed with the losing candidate, while the winning one just might be incapable of feeding himself in a few weeks.
The problem is corruption and self interest. To paraphrase:
Those who want the power are the least suitable to wield it
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
""we purchased a plot of vacant land on the border and retained a law firm specializing in eminent domain to make it as time-consuming and expensive as possible for Trump to build his wall.") "
Easy enough - build the wall to the property's borders. Then put up a lot of cameras. Record the illegals coming through on the property. Then, the government can just seize it at leisure
"It's hard not to notice how angry conservatives get when people who don't agree with them exercise their First Amendment rights."
Says the libtard where people only have first amendment rights if they agree with the liberal mouthpiece, right?
Not like anyone's going to read this far down, but it feels like the comments on a story about 'Giving $1000 to lower income people during the holidays' can be summed up best by, 'God-damn liberals trying to make me look like an asshole by doing a nice thing!'
Gotta spread the wealth you know...
Idiots and morons. When they leave a gap in the wall for this asshat's plot, we'll just line up to the side and plink away at those who poke there nose through. Complete waste of their money only providing some amusement for us and a whopping property tax bill for them.
Not all charities are equal. And a lot of them are just slush funds and side projects to allow money to be moved to where the wealthy want without it being taxed.
It isn't the worst idea. It would be better at having a correct cross section of the population. I'm afraid that racism and sexism might impact the post approval scores though. It would be better to have an unbiased & blind oversight committee along with some media investigators judge to performance. They would have to make a universal criteria and then see how well each member did.
Are you wilfully stupid, or you just can't help it?
Clearly you mis-understand Christianity. The whole point of Christianity is that no one can buy their entrance to heaven. Furthermore, social programs were the responsibility of the church, not the government. This was the case until the government took on more and more social programs.
>Does that 30% more to "charity" include tithes and other donations to their church? If so, then they are buying their places in heaven and donating to their local social club. A bit self serving in that type of charity.
Religious people donate both more to churches - no big surprise there - but also to secular charities at a higher rate than atheists.
Their goal was to prevent the wall being built, saving billions of dollars. If they can delay long enough Trump might run out of time or political capital to do it.
Est. $28B to build the wall one time expense. Costs $150B/yearly to deal with illegals in the US alone.
I'm sure you're lining up to get the wall taken down around Windsor Castle right?
Om, nomnomnom...
Apparently you have no family that either lived in east germany, or lived there and managed to escape to the west. It worked very well, they even managed to get around 98% of the tunnels used to smuggle western goods in and people out of the east. On top of that those walls and fences are working very well in eastern european countries and greece keeping 'migrants' from entering too. Also seems to have stopped all those palestinian suicide bombers from randomly walking in and blowing people up, or sniping at people along the main highways. And when was the last time you heard about a israeli family being butchered in their beds along with all the children after the wall was completed.
Walls don't work...sure...
Om, nomnomnom...
Religious people donate both more to religious charities and to secular charities.
https://www.hoover.org/researc...
Exactly the response I'd expect from a conservative coward. You should probably leave. Adults are present, and you don't belong.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
By that logic we shouldn't protest anything the government does because if it doesn't work out just wastes money.
Not even what I'm implying. Strawman arguments. This is why I never give you the benefit of the doubt. You purposely twist arguments in ways that are intellectually dishonest. I see it from a mile away.
Money is clearly the most important thing here, a few million in litigation tops out of the billions being pissed away on this thing.
The political will currently exists to get it done. It's not one of those things where forcing any litigation to stop it is going to work.
Or maybe we could go really nuts and claim it's a subsidy to Mexico. A 30ft high wall is a massive stimulus program for 31ft ladder manufacturers south of the border.
Look, another irrelevant statement to support your strawmanning!
Also, well done calling my post retarded. Really adds credibility to your argument-by-Trump "it will definitely happen, and it will be easy" narrative.
I dunno, maybe you should stop making retarded statements, stop strawmanning, stop adding useless rhetoric, and actually discuss what I'm writing and not what you think I might be writing to get into one of those "gotcha" moments.
Just build the wall so their part is locked in with mexico.
Actually yeah, that thing should be in public ownership and turned into a tourist attraction. Guillotines optional.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's easy to say that when churches are considered "charities" and the republicans actively court every church goer they can find.
This distortion is clearly evident from your own article, but ignored in your post. 40% of the way down the page is the breakdown, "Religion and Charitable Giving". The church-goers group gives slightly more than the non church goers to secular causes, but they dwarf everything else on the chart with their donations to the church.
Don't get all holier than though about charity when 70% of your "charitable" contributions went to a church.
So, by your own review, the Church-goers still 'win'. And to accept your 'point', you would have to imagine that Church contributions go only to fund church operations. They don't. Church raised funds also go to charity operations both directly (food banks, for example) and indirectly (providing a meeting space- and building heating- for local groups like boys and girl scouts, AA, etc.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
He notes “there is a persistent sterotype about charitable giving in politically progressive regions of America: while people on the political right may be hardworking and family-oriented, they tend not to be very charitable toward the less fortunate,” while, “those on the political left care about vulnerable members of society, and are thus the charitable ones. This stereotype is wrong.”
Perhaps a more realistic view would be that the "political left" are far stronger supporters of government support for those who need it rather than charitable donations.
"think"
Never happened. Fake news. SAD!
Not to mention that LynnwoodRooster is implying that charities are better than government.
And they seem to be conveniently forgetting a couple things:
1) Churches are tax exempt (see John Oliver's Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption)
2) Countries run by churches are the same, if not worse, as the current theocracies that we have in the world today
3) The Vatican basically ran a child sex slave trade
4) The Dark Ages were caused by the Church (who knew crusades were bad?)
Est. $28B to build the wall one time expense. Costs $150B/yearly to deal with illegals in the US alone.
You're implying that after the wall is built the US will spend less yearly funds on illegals. How much less do think? That really depends on how effective the wall will be, which is arguable. Actual building costs will likely be higher regardless, as the last 600 mile stretch of fencing ended up costing far more than estimated also.
Nothing total and complete darkness wouldn't fix!
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
It wasn't the wall that was effective. It was the secret service and men with guns and orders to shoot to kill on top of the wall that were effective. Me, I'd rather not replicate that here.
Here's an idea: All you guys that have good paying jobs (maybe because you went to college, worked hard, whatever the case), and pay your share of taxes, why don't you give your money to us, and we'll give it to those who don't pay their own way?
Great idea. Now move to Canada
Especially if in their madness they allow charities to engage in political activities and retain their tax free status.
My guess is that GP is n American. This sounds like exactly the sort of thing the US government would do.
There is a single anecdote that government run healthcare in one specific country isn't always perfect.
FTFY.
Well actually, since they are believers they are by definition holier than you.
Since they seem to support breaking the law through supporting illegal immigration, I wonder if they would actively support someone stealing their product?
Ok, but you're implying that churches aren't charitable causes. Quite a bit of their money is used for such things. But even if you completely ignore church donations, you say yourself that "The church-goers group gives slightly more than the non church goers to secular causes" which still supports the argument that conservatives are at least as charitable as liberals.
As for who is holier than whom, well, that's just ad hominim and not my place to sort out anyway. :)
It's basically a bad knockoff of the old Steve Jackson game, Illuminati.
You have obviously never played either Card Against Humanity or the old Steve Jackson game (either one), Illuminati. Makes me wonder if you just didn't forget to log out and post as the usual shit posting AC.
Considering that immigration from Mexico is still a negative number (and growing more negative as they leave the dumpster fire that is the USA), it's clearly meant to keep people in, rather than keeping people out.
Have you seen the members of the US Congress?!?! We basically pay them to twiddle their thumbs all day. Well ... that and take juicy donations from the private sector. Everything in politics is a money and time sink. Hypocrisy is the flavor of the day.
/s
The difference here is that in the end, they are SAVING the government money by not allowing them to build a big, dumb, ineffective wall. You say they are wasting the government's money by creating roadblocks. I say the government is wasting OUR money by trying to barrel through roadblocks. How about we stop building the wall and save everybody time and money?
Should the EFF stop their work because they are a "roadblock" to removing net neutrality? Maybe the ACLU and NAACP are also governmental roadblocks too? Get rid of them all and we have a well oiled machine that doesn't fail anybody!!!
The Berlin wall also had guards with guns watching it 24/7; I don't think this has been proposed for Trumps wall. Had that not been the case for Berlin I suspect it wouldn't have been nearly as effective.
I don't think you have ever tried a private system. As a sufferer of a disease that requires the occasional MRI I can get one in about one weeks time. My fellow suffering friends in Britain who have the NHS system covering them have to wait 4 months for an MRI. There is proof that government run healthcare stinks.
That is not "proof that government run healthcare stinks". That is anecdotal evidence that the NHS may need to invest in more MRI machines and supporting personnel. However, if 4 month waits for MRIs aren't causing adverse health outcomes, that would be a waste of money.
One (of many) reasons the US spends twice per capita on healthcare as other advanced nations is that many doctors are invested in imaging centers to which they refer their own patients.
The "whatever I want, whenever I want it, and a lot of it" mentality that afflicts much of American life is terrible for health care costs. Moreover, it is paid for even by those who are willing to use only what the need and wait for it if necessary.
What percentage of your earnings do you donate to charity?
I agree that church tithes should be discounted, but it seems that discounting them by 100% is going too far; regardless of your support or opposition to proselytization, churches do engage in useful charity work (e.g. food shelf donation drives).
It seems to me that anyone who doesn't contribute to charity doesn't have a leg to stand on in criticizing people who give to religious charities.
The Berlin wall didn't run along the border of East and West Germany. Berlin was in the middle of East Germany...and the wall did an excellent job of keeping people from escaping to west Berlin.
Democracy does not work because critical thinking begins at an IQ of ~110, and a full 2/3rds of people are below this. As such, the less intelligent will always outnumber the intelligent. Democracy is âoeidiot ruleâ ... well, not really âoeidiotâ per-se, but those with the intellect to solve problems are always going to be outvoted by those who learn through repetition. To hell with your positions on the issues, in most places, the winner is the person who had the most visibility in a partiular locality. Equal representation is fools gold, any democratic society will always fall into corruption. Even Lenin eventually realized the working class was too mentally dull to rise up. Give them their bread and circuses, and you can do what you want to the nation.
Donate a fish, and the poor will eat for a day. Giving them proper access to the pond however, seems to be a different thing.
Per American. Thatâ(TM)s what âoeper capitaâ means. Geez, did your education end in the third grade?
Of course, Americans receive very little healthcare for that enormous amount of money spent. Thatâ(TM)s my point: the problem isnâ(TM)t that we arenâ(TM)t spending enough money, the problem is that healthcare in the US costs too much.
Spare me your platitutdes, and look up the numbers yourself: there are numerous sources.
No, not âoeamong other thingsâ; lack of coverage is the result of excessive prices, and so are bankruptcies.
Religious people donate both more to religious charities and to secular charities.
https://www.hoover.org/researc...
Interesting. Thanks. I've seen several studies that say the opposite, so clearly I need to dig deeper into the question to identify the differences in methodology. Unfortunately, the article you link is very light on methodological detail and it's not clear if the author has even published that information.
One guess, though, is that I think the other studies measured non-religious giving in dollars, while the author appears to have measured the probability of giving something. So, religious people who donate thousands to their church and a few dollars to the local homeless shelter vs non-religious people who donate hundreds to the homeless shelter and nothing to the church would fit.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Paying dues so you can go hang out in a pretty building with solid oak seats, beautiful skylights, custom artwork and a new AV system isn't charity.
Bullcrap. God cannot be bought, and heaven is not for sale. The Bible does not link money to admission or spiritual power. In fact, attempts to do so fall under the sin of Simony.
Might there be a some corrupt people thinking that way? Sure. But don't paint everyone with such a broad brush of corruptible, self-serving behavior. The Church has many true believers with good hearts and cheerful, selfless givers.