tvashtarkatena

Turn off the lights. Light some candles. Put on some Bob Dylan from his Woody Guthrie period. Get your favorite rock glass. Pop the cork off the bottle of Pendleton. Pour generously. Start sipping. Soon, a warm, inner glow, a kind of perfect reverie, will supplant your hate. Your hate will return the following morning, however, with a vengeance.

This thread is well within six sigma of the mean on the ridiculous distribution.

Jesus Christ, I just ate asian stirfry. So, Dave...what er ya doing later on tonight?

Stop agreeing with me. It's freaking me out.

Well, I'm screwed.

I also think giving to charity has nothing to do with income. There are a hell of a lot of folks out there with not much money who give their time instead. It's not how much you make, it's whether you care or not. That's the difference.

No irony there. I think you're wrong, by the way. This has been a decent debate with some well thought out arguments, not just spray. I'm not sure how you're delineating the two, frankly, because you haven't, well, thought it out, maybe. PS: You can look up 'margin of error' on the internet.

I agree. Giving to a church is no more dicey than giving to, say, Ralph Nader's election campaign. That argument becomes a rathole without a bottom. Oh, shit, I forgot to send that check to Wicca of Washington! Gotta go....

OK, Merry Christmas, then. I'm from California, and believe me, even the shitty houses are expensive. Hard to argue with your last statement, though. By definition, it's true.

It's call Spray.

my point is that the excuse used earlier that liberals can't afford to be charitable because they live in expensive areas - is a TOTALLY selfish excuse. Where the hell did you come up with this conclusion? Some sprayer just dropped it like a soft turd onto this forum and now it's hard fact? Have you been practicing your Anime Shun?

So, let me get this straight. When you say I'm just spraying and not arguing, are you arguing or just spraying? Writing a book in itself affords an author not one ounce of credibility. There are millions of books filled with absolute garbage, from Mein Kamf to Ancient Astronauts to entire authoritative tomes on the Rapture. I've pointed out some possible flaws in this study. I'll point out another...how did the interviewer determine how much money each interviewee gave? Take their word for it? Tax returns (many contributions are not tax deductible and so wouldn't show up). As for you succinct, pat, and outdated definition of liberal as government dependent (I'm thinking that many liberals are not very enamored with the feds at this point) and conservative as responsible self starter, spare me even more drivel. No one has loved big government more than the conservative party of Reagan, and everyone on this forum knows it. Do you want to know what I think of the study? I'd wager that 6% is well within the error margin, given all the the potential flaws and innaccuracies I've argued, oh sorry, sprayed. The conclusion, therefore? What you'd expect from a large cross-sectional population: Self described liberals and conservatives probably give about the same amount the charity.

SOrry, bra. I knew that all along, because my roommate in college was a capoeira freak. I just couldn't resist.

Hmmmm, how would they categorize themselves in Dr. Brooks' study? Liberal, or Conservative? Would half go one way and half the other? Methinks you've exposed a chink in your own argument...

This is my problem? No, it's really simple, he asked them to self-identify. The data in the first paragraph is based on what categorization the people in the study considered themselves to fit. To simpletons, everything is simple. Neither JayB or the good doctor included a margin of error. In addition, 'self identification' can be fantastically error prone (we all know how incredibly accurate polls are), based on how the questions are asked and how respondees are contacted or gathered in the first place. For one thing, how do we know that the 'liberal' respondees were chosen just as randomly as the 'conservative'. How would one go about ensuring equal randomness in these to groups? Why is that more relevant? There are lots of confounding variables built into the group that's reading this website. How is this going to be more relevant? If you're saying it's more relevant because we kind of know each other, then I could agree with that. Nearly all of the statements on this particarly forum are nothing but drivel. San Franciscans are more 'selfish' because they live in San Francisco? Does that poster even KNOW anyone in San Francisco? Give me a fucking break. Instead of pointing fingers at people we've yet to meet and groups about which we have no knowledge, which to me is completely irrelevant, why not have the finger pointers put their money where their mouths are? That, to me, is the central point of this kind of discussion. It is pretty easy, and pretty weak, to just suggest this is doctored without showing any evidence whatsoever. It seems like you're just saying it beacuse you don't like the results. It may 'seem' like it, but I don't give a damn about the results. When I smell a bullshit study, however, I'm going to comment. What matters to me regarding charity is what I'm doing or not doing, not what someone I've never met is doing.

Buffet perhaps, but I can assure you from first hand knowledge that Gates (and Allen, for that matter) are very socially liberal.

Yeah, fuck art and all that shit. Fuck literature. We're here to shop, dump, drink, and hump.

Has anyone mentioned yet that a 6% difference is probably well within the error band of determining whether a person was 'liberal' or 'conservative', which are two overly broad categorizations in themselves? It seems to me that this is the type of study that proves nothing to anyone but a limited audience seeking a particulary result. The much more relevant question is this: how much do each of us, right here on this forum, give back? No doctored studies or manufactured statistics required.

For some reason I first read this as: Texas would allow Bill to hunt the blind This guy was 'interviewed' by Samantha Bee. Check it on Comedy Central.

Chetbans?

Where can I get a pair of those Pino-shades?

Wu chu lak chu mai phat cho da be lee?

Wi dung chu suk muk dong

Anime Shun

...a Union in which I would make you my personal slave. KKK will be chained to a cement filled tire, with nothing to play with but a half chewed, disconnected keyboard and a headless GI Joe.