RCP: Why Left Talks About 'White' Tea Parties

[The 12th Commandment]

Ironically it is the those on the right that actually help people through charity and volunteering, the left not so much.

I wonder if you included the programs passed by democratic administrations, congresses, state and local governments, that wouldn't exist if the right had it's say, how that would balance out? Serious question.

[jpyaks3]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

http://talkingpoints.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/conservative-vs-liberal-charity-donations/

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity

Arthur Brooks counts every cent donated to a church as charitable, even when a significant amount of this money may not actually be going to a person of need, instead it can go to proselytizing, church upkeep, providing services to its members etc. he also found in a 2003 article that Liberal churchgoers and Conservative churchgoers give at the same rate. So in reality the differences seem to be in churchgoers/religious and non-religious/secular not really a Left vs. Right thing. Since more on the left are secular than it isn't shocking that if you combine everyone then it looks like the Right gives more then the Left when its really just a segment of the Left that is bringing down that average. That number is also inflated because Brooks counts giving to any church as charitable which causes the problems of in his own words that "religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities". This increases the differences in those statistics although he also shows that the religious do tend to volunteer and donate more even to non-religious causes, it just isn't nearly as big of a gap.

I guess my problem is when those on the right take one study by a conservative that is on a prominent conservative think tank as the be all end all that Conservatives give more than Liberals when in reality it is only one study by one man. It is also done by someone who has an obvious agenda.

[mcsluggo]

This article captures much of how I view the left.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/05/02/why_left_talks_about_white_tea_parties_105317.html

............Therefore the Left pays attention to the skin color -- and gender (not just "whites" but "white males") -- of the tea partiers rather than to their ideas.

One would hope that all people would assess ideas by their moral rightness or wrongness, not by the race, gender or class of those who hold them. But in the world of the Left, people are taught not to assess ideas but to identify the race, class and gender of those who espouse those ideas. This helps explain the widespread use of ad hominem attacks by the Left: Rather than argue against their opponents' ideas, the Left usually dismisses those making the argument disagreed with as "racist," "intolerant," "bigoted," "sexist," "homophobic" and/or "xenophobic."

You're against race-based affirmative action? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist. You're a tea partier against ever-expanding government? No need to argue the issue because you're a racist.

........

the "this is how I view he left..." is a HILLARIOUS introduction into this

I particularly liked how you manged to avoid even a HINT at irony...

bravo!!!

<<< a better title to the thread would be: "How I pigeon-holed ""THE LEFT"" based on an article that used straw man tactics to show that the left pigeon holes everyone..." >>

[JimboDaMan]

Arthur Brooks counts every cent donated to a church as charitable, even when a significant amount of this money may not actually be going to a person of need, instead it can go to proselytizing, church upkeep, providing services to its members etc. he also found in a 2003 article that Liberal churchgoers and Conservative churchgoers give at the same rate. So in reality the differences seem to be in churchgoers/religious and non-religious/secular not really a Left vs. Right thing. Since more on the left are secular than it isn't shocking that if you combine everyone then it looks like the Right gives more then the Left when its really just a segment of the Left that is bringing down that average. That number is also inflated because Brooks counts giving to any church as charitable which causes the problems of in his own words that "religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities". This increases the differences in those statistics although he also shows that the religious do tend to volunteer and donate more even to non-religious causes, it just isn't nearly as big of a gap.

I guess my problem is when those on the right take one study by a conservative that is on a prominent conservative think tank as the be all end all that Conservatives give more than Liberals when in reality it is only one study by one man. It is also done by someone who has an obvious agenda.

I'd be interested to see whether people who devote themselves to the more idealistic careers - social workers, teachers, missionaries, etc. - tend to be more liberal or conservative. These are people who make giving a way of life as opposed to a hobby or something done on Sunday, and their contributions aren't measured in collection plates or plastic jugs.

I would expect the non-religious ones to be more liberal. The religious types might be more conservative, but I don't know if the kind of guy who devotes him/her self to teaching farming skills in Guatemala or organizing a women's co-op in rural India is your typical red-stater. I poked around a little bit googling but couldn't find much definitive about who it is that does these kinds of things.

[Titaw]

When a group of white people get together we are racist. When a group of black people get together it is considered empowering. It really is sickening how if you are a conservative white man you must be racist, but if you are a liberal black man you are a hero. How much sense does that make?

[DjTj]

When a group of white people get together we are racist. When a group of black people get together it is considered empowering.

This is begging for some mad libs.

When a group of white people get together it is a mob. When a group of black people get together it is a gang.

When a group of white people get together it is a band. When a group of black people get together it is a dance crew.

When a group of white people get together it is a neighborhood. When a group of black people get together it is a hood.

When a group of white people get together it is a hockey team. When a group of black people get together it is a basketball team.

When a group of white people get together it is on CBS. When a group of black people get together it is on the WB.

[Titaw]

This is begging for some mad libs.

When a group of white people get together it is a mob. When a group of black people get together it is a gang.

When a group of white people get together it is a band. When a group of black people get together it is a dance crew.

When a group of white people get together it is a neighborhood. When a group of black people get together it is a hood.

When a group of white people get together it is a hockey team. When a group of black people get together it is a basketball team.

When a group of white people get together it is on CBS. When a group of black people get together it is on the WB.

I definately lol'd. Very nice sir. Very nice indeed!

[Henry]

When a group of Jews get together it's a minyan.

[visionary]

When a group of Jews get together it's a minyan.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAhVyyL3SU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFAhVyyL3SU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[Predicto]

I'm glad I missed this thread.

Who would have thought that a generic op-ed piece by conservative radio personality Dennis Prager could bring out all of the generalizations and resentments - of both sides - in such a predictable pattern?

Heck, we could do this every week. Prager has written basically the same column about 100 times now: "secular leftists have taken over our universities, newspapers, television and unions, and led by the evil ACLU, they demean Judeo-Christian values and the honest Real Americans that revere them blah blah blah."