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?
This is what happens when you try to play politics instead of minding your own fucking business.
I toss you into the toilet.
>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.
With the sex abuse scandals out in force, and abusive men in full retreat all across the cultural spectrum, it seems like a poor idea for CAH to choose to be in the spotlight. In July 2014, a woman came forward with her account of having been raped by Max Temkin, one of the creators of Cards Against Humanity. The original post of him denying it is password protected, but this analysis is still open. Whatever the truth of the situation, the whole thing reads a little like, "I'm sorry if you thought I sexually assaulted you, but I definitely did not."
He casts himself as a male feminist and a good social justice person, but we know now from Weinstien, Franken, Laurer, and all the rest that the loudest voices for women are always the worst offenders. There's no secret why, they're trying to head off accusations by pretending to be for women's rights. Even Wil Wheaton supported Max Tempkin. Rapists aren't monsters and that's why they're scary. Tempkin thought it would be funny to include a card titled "Surprise Sex" but in light of the atmosphere today it sure makes him look like a different person, doesn't it?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
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
All you can see is liberal Troll Tags :-P (Guess we know who runs/own this site)
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
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?"
A quick search suggests you are confusing wil wheaton with joss whedon.
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".
>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.
...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
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
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 ?
"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.
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.
The wall is going to be built. The government will either easily seize the land, or build around it. They aren't saving billions of dollars by doing this. They are creating more government spending. Once the wall is built, there will be less money, because of them, to be spent on other government services that they probably really like. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.
Or did you think Mexico was paying for it?
Do you have anything else absolutely retarded to add that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing?
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.
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.
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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'
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.
Walls work temporarily, but eventually they fail. Look at all the walls of history, no ancient wall marks a modern border.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
""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.
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...
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.
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.
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. :)
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!!!
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.
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.