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."

55 of 418 comments (clear)

  1. i am too poor.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    to send them 15 bucks, so i missed out on the thousand. gee, thanks, but the 'poorest' didn't get the check.

  2. Virtue Signaling at its best. by thesupraman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Virtue Signaling at its best. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only sincere actions are the ones that align with your own political views. Everything else is just virtue signalling. Nobody does anything nice or altruistic, it's all purely to show off.

      Of course, complaining about virtue signalling in every single story about anything virtuous is definitely not virtue signalling. You are doing a public service, calling out wrong-doers, not showing off your cynical anti-do-gooder credentials.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Virtue Signaling at its best. by dbarclay10 · · Score: 2

      The only sincere actions are the ones that align with your own political views. Everything else is just virtue signalling. Nobody does anything nice or altruistic, it's all purely to show off.

      Of course, complaining about virtue signalling in every single story about anything virtuous is definitely not virtue signalling. You are doing a public service, calling out wrong-doers, not showing off your cynical anti-do-gooder credentials.

      I do nice things all the time, frequently without anybody knowing (so it can't possibly be virtue signalling).

      You're just a giant asshole and/or troll :)

      Hope that helps.

      --

      Barclay family motto:
      Aut agere aut mori.
      (Either action or death.)
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Typical republitard intellectual dishonesty and corruption. Purposely ignore all the content of your adversery's argument and concentrate only on the form. In other words: Don't like the message ? Shoot the messenger ! Problem solved !

      Oh and don't forget to highlight all the hatefull parts of the adversary's message, while completely ignoring the hatefull parts of the message the adversary was replying to, like "SJW libtard", "SJW bullshit" and "cancer". So only right-wingers are allowed to use hatefull language ? Is that what you're saying ?

      Yes, "libtard" message is full of hate. But hate breeds hate, and the hate the left has for the right is only in response to the right's culturaly ingrained hatred that they've been spreading all over for CENTURIES. Hatred of blacks. Hatred of women. Hatred of everyone that's not a white christian conservative english speaking man. Hatred of science. Christianity is supposed to be all about charity, compassion, understanding, humility, forgiveness, peace and love. And yet, christians always seem to be the most condescending, jugemental, condemning, finger-pointing, war-loving, pro-death-penalty, hatefull people I've ever known.

      Since I'm convinced you will simply ignore my arguments and focus only on the form again, this is my last reply. There's no use in wresling with a pig. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.

    2. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You have it exactly backwards. Reality-averse conservatives have been trying to take over this site for about the past year and a half. The whole Right Wing Echo Chamber has moved in and set up shop.

      Your comment reminds me of those Christians who rant about "keeping Christ in Christmas" while they blithely ignore the fact that Christians stole the holiday. Even the most devout biblical scholars acknowledge there is absolutely no way Jesus was born anywhere near that time of year.

      So I'm sorry to correct you, but you are 100% wrong.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    3. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW libtard? by LiquidAvatar · · Score: 2

      Goddamn politics and the jerks who derail conversations by introducing them where they're not warranted. I hate it when I'm looking for a discussion about an art project that focuses on income inequality, but I find ad hominem attacks against the guy who runs the company that made the project. As we all know, the personal flaws of a single leader at a company taint everything that that company does, meaning that the company can never produce anything of value.

      --
      It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.
      -Voltaire
  5. Re:Into the toilet by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    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.
  6. Re:Walls work in israel by lucasnate1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm Israeli and I'm not sure if they do. We keep relying on palestinians to work inside our borders, and we are also racist to our arab citizens in a way that makes them identify with palestine more than they do with us.

    Maybe the wall has some benefit, but you can't just use it and magically forget about the people on the other side.

  7. Sweet! by DaMattster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Misanthropy by jellomizer · · Score: 2

    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.
  9. Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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;
    1. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure they've really thought this through.

      Care for everyone's needs and eliminate one of the biggest things we fight over? What a horrible place that would make the world!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have free stuff for poor people but no borders, all the world's poor will arrive to get their free stuff. If you raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all your rich people will leave to avoid them. If you print money to pay for it you end up like Zimbabwe or Venezuela. Or most of South America for that matter. Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.

      As Milton Friedman observed "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state".

      --
      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;
    3. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      The top 1% pay 27% of taxes now, compared to 15% in 1979 when tax rates were higher. Meanwhile their share of income has increased from 9% to 18%

      http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...

      And the top 10% pay 72.7% of income taxes and 54.7% of all Federal taxrs. E.g. see page 7 here.

      https://cbo.gov/sites/default/...

      The top 20%, i.e. highest quintile, pay 86.3% of all income tax and 68.7% of all Federal taxes.

      On the previous page you can see how the effective tax rate rises with income quintile, i.e. from 4% to 25%.

      So how are the rich, at least the ones who remain, not paying their fair share?

      And of course given that it's highly rational for people who are US taxpayers to stop being US tax payers by giving up citizenship. And for people who aren't US taxpayers to avoid become US taxpayers at all cost.

      I.e. in general the US's progressive tax system is an incentive for rich people to avoid becoming US citizens or lose that citizenship if they have it.

      Meanwhile the US benefits system, sloppy enforcement of immigration rules and easy availability of fake Social Security Numbers to allow illegal immigrants to claim benefits.

      That's the problem with the left. Their intentions are good but they don't understand incentives. And if you get incentives wrong you won't get the result you want. See for example South American countries who ended up dirt poor despite electing politicians who had similarly good intentions to help the poor and tax the rich. And the end result was that you have countries like Venezuela and Cuba that would be pretty rich under a government that was only as bad as the US one. Actually the government is far worse and those countries are so poor people flee them for pretty much anywhere else.

      --
      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;
    4. Re:Free stuff for poor people + No Borders by youngone · · Score: 2

      Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.

      Well, to be fair when Chile tried that in 1973 the CIA murdered the President.
      When Hondurans tried, American troops murdered a whole bunch of them so that bananas would be cheap.
      So, maybe you're wrong.

  10. Re:Leading By Example by Cederic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    they're serving as an example of what should be done on a broader scale

    Really? Get rich through invention, creativity and good marketing, then use other people's money to make grand gestures that benefit almost nobody?

    They come across as entrepreneurs turned pretentious pricks.

  11. Re:Into the toilet by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  12. Re:Unfortunate timing by zabbey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"?

  13. Re:Leading By Example by zabbey · · Score: 2

    They spend X amount of money on an eminent domain lawyer, the government spends 100 times that amount winning the lawsuit over a few years. There. Cost the taxpayers tons of money to prove no point.

  14. Re: Into the toilet by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:Into the toilet by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2

    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

  16. Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost More by Kneo24 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  17. FTA about exactly this by doug141 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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?"

  18. Re:Into the toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  19. Sounds like a favorite cause of mine by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Sounds like a favorite cause of mine by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 4, Informative

      In June 2016 John Oliver bought up $15M of medical debt and forgave it. There's details and a clip in this Guardian article.

    2. Re:Sounds like a favorite cause of mine by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

      "John Oliver, champion of wealthy doctors, pharmaceutical companies, and excessive medical costs in America."

      [citation needed]

      Counter citation: John Oliver buys $15M in medical debt, then forgives it. Is he perfect? No. But if you want to claim that he is the opposite of what the citation shows him doing then please be so kind as to give a reason for someone to think you didn't just pull that line out of your own posterior.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  20. Re: Into the toilet by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

    "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...
  21. Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  22. Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard not to notice how angry conservatives get when people who don't agree with them exercise their First Amendment rights.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  23. Re:Build around it. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    So what is the plan, cede the land to Mexico? Because if you build the wall close to the border and make it unpassable, it's gonna be pretty difficult to stop Mexicans on the other side simply using it as their own.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  24. Re:Walls work in israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Wall in Israel dramatically reduced the number of murdered Israeli citizens by forcing the bombers and assassins through security checkpoints, where most are either caught or turn back.

    Of all the things you can complain about, having a wall that physically separates the Israelis from a group of people whom 60% want to genocide them is not one of them.

  25. Build wall on their land, make them maintain it. by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 2

    Gift them the wall, require they pay for ongoing maintenance. That'll teach em.

  26. Re:Misanthropy by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!
  27. Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo by doctorvo · · Score: 2

    The US Govt, just prioritizes healthcare for its citizens less than it prioritizes, say, defence, tax cuts, naval exercises and so on.

    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.

    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.

  28. Re:Into the toilet by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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."
  29. False by backslashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Walls work temporarily, but eventually they fail. Look at all the walls of history, no ancient wall marks a modern border.

    1. Re:False by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > Walls work temporarily, but eventually they fail. Look at all the walls of history, no ancient wall marks a modern border.

      This is one of the dumbest statements I have ever read. You've noticed that structures don't last forever.

      Let's make some observations based on your reasoning:
      *Very few, if any, Roman aqueducts are still in use, therefore aqueducts don't work.
      *Some ancient roads are still in use, but they probably can't handle heavy traffic from trucks or cars moving at 70 MPH. Therefore, roads don't work.
      *Castles are no longer used as a means of defense. Therefore, fortifications are useless.

  30. Re: Walls work in israel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why weren't you saying the same thing when Obama signed his 800 mile border wall extension in 2013 ?

    It's just trump is evil ?

    Probably because in reality, what Obama was doing was different, namely a measured and considered response that reflected a rational desire to mitigate harm that was based on acutal problems, and not the blatant hyperbole that Trump resorted to, which is really Trump's own fault because of his personal lack of temperance and desire to concoct imagined demons to fight. In fact, he himself rejected the fencing of the Bush and Obama days in preference to his own concrete edifice. Among other castigations.

    You see, some of us haven't forgotten that Trump denounced Democrats for "an open door policy" that was entirely his concoction while falsely claiming phony successes of his own.

    But hey, great that you're admitting that Trump lied. One lie down, dozens to go!

  31. Re:Lame promotion for their own lame game. by hyades1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only a conservative could be so reality-averse they are able to ignore the almost daily public temper tantrums thrown by the current US President while accusing liberals of being immature.

    Thanks for the chuckle.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  32. Re:Worried About Healthcare, Making Things Cost Mo by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  33. Re:Misanthropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  34. Re:Misanthropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  35. Re:Into the toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  36. Re:SJW Bullshit by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Conservatives often get angry and vituperative when decent Americans resist them, no matter how peacefully it is done.

    Why does the idea that people exercised their constitutional right to buy and own property, then chose to use it as they are legally allowed to fill you with rage?

    --
    Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
  37. Re:Misanthropy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  38. Re:Misanthropy by hexadecimate · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  39. Re:When did Slashdot turn full SJW by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Slashdot started up that way. Where were you?

  40. Re:Misanthropy by nhtshot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  41. Re: Walls work in israel by Ocker3 · · Score: 2

    Just like Obama's 'Muslim Ban', which was a specific and limited response to a known and quantifiable threat from one specific country, as compared to Trump's 'Muslim Ban' which was a broad ban on multiple countries without any specific information as to any threats from any of them.

  42. Re:Walls work in israel by JabrTheHut · · Score: 2

    The awesome thing about the wall is that it managed to stop suicide attacks before it was completed. It's still not quite complete, amusingly. It's almost as though Palestinians decided to stop the suicide bombings, and the Israelis just wanted more land....

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  43. So.... Republicans still give more..... by dfenstrate · · Score: 2

    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.