Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That was quite the post. I'm not sure if I understand your point, but I'll give it a shot. Being treated fairly means people earn a day's wages for a day's work, whatever their profession might be. It doesn't mean a day's wages for sitting on your butt. It doesn't mean a hairdresser earns the same as a doctor. Unfortunately, the victimology taught by Obama is the opposite of being treated equally. Someone getting something they don't earn or deserve is not fair.
You do know how capitalism works don't you? If a hairdresser makes more than a doctor that means that she/he is doing quite well and is pretty busy, don't you think? Lets look at this "equality thing" do you even have a clue what that means? Let me try to explain it to you, a woman that does the same job as a man gets paid the same amount of money (Lily Ledbetter Act). The right of a gay couple to have the same rights as a hetero married one. Perhaps those pesky different dark people will be able to live in your neighborhood without being bothered. I think maybe it is time for those wealthy people who have been getting increasingly wealthier on the backs of the middleclass and at the same time shipping jobs overseas. when was the last time that you talked to someone in customer service that actually lives here?
As for the convention, the demographics of the RNC was more representative of America and the DNC was skewed. Look it up. America's races are not equally divided whether you want to pretend they are or not.
So there are no gays, people of color, or muslims represented by the RNC? So in your world the majority of America's population are angry white extremist christians?
As for liberals wanting to help the poor, feast your eyes on this:
Written by a Liberal:
Liberal Tightwads
Nicholas D. Kristof
12/23/08
This holiday season is a time to examine who's been naughty and who's been nice, but I'm unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, "Who Really Cares," cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.
Other research has reached similar conclusions. The "generosity index" from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.
The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans -- the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.
"When I started doing research on charity," Mr. Brooks wrote, "I expected to find that political liberals -- who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did -- would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views."
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than the United States in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.
Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67% of GNP, according to a terrific new book, "Philanthrocapitalism," by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73%, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14%.
(Looking away from politics, there's evidence that one of the most generous groups in the United States is gays. Researchers believe that is because they are less likely to have rapacious heirs pushing to keep wealth in the family.)
When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches -- that a fair amount of that money isn't helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It's true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives. According to Google's figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes. In any case, if conservative donations often end up building extravagant churches, liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It's great to support the arts and education, but they're not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)
Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the U.S. blood supply would increase by 45%.
So, you've guessed it! This column is a transparent attempt this holiday season to shame liberals into being more charitable. Since I often scold Republicans for being callous in their policies toward the needy, it seems only fair to reproach Democrats for being cheap in their private donations. What I want for Christmas is a healthy competition between left and right to see who actually does more for the neediest.
Of course, given the economic pinch these days, charity isn't on the top of anyone's agenda. Yet the financial ability to contribute to charity, and the willingness to do so, are strikingly unrelated. Amazingly, the working poor, who have the least resources, somehow manage to be more generous as a percentage of income than the middle class.
So, even in tough times, there are ways to help. Come on liberals, redeem yourselves. Put your wallets where your hearts are.
Never been to Pittsburgh either huh? If you had you would have taken this letter with a grain of salt, but since you rarely leave your log cabin it is understandable
The rage, divisiveness, and hatred that Obama has spread to the American people has now spewed like projectile vomit, even over something as small as a typo. I do not talk about politics in person that much because my state is a solid red, thank God! But I know that a black person voting for Romney will most likely not be outspoken. That's a fact. Deal with it.
You like many of your right wing brethren only see what you what to see and hear. I never said that there were no blacks that will vote for mitt, what I questioned is why would they lie about it. By the way I just moved from your state and it is red for a reason the education system down there sucks!
I do realize that there are still people down there still fighting the civil war and racism is still king outside of Atlanta....so much for equality.
Never been to Pittsburgh either huh? If you had you would have taken this letter with a grain of salt, but since you rarely leave your log cabin it is understandable
I know perfectly well what equality is. I don't even know why you took the time to write that. You might want to take this with an alka-seltzer. Have a good night.
You like many of your right wing brethren only see what you what to see and hear. I never said that there were no blacks that will vote for mitt, what I questioned is why would they lie about it. By the way I just moved from your state and it is red for a reason the education system down there sucks!
I do realize that there are still people down there still fighting the civil war and racism is still king outside of Atlanta....so much for equality.
I don't think the topic of discussion was that blacks would lie about voting for Romney, but that they wouldn't "admit" it. There's a difference. You are all over the place. First you make fun of Herman Cain, a black man who has more accomplishments than Barack Obama will probably ever have, aside from his rock star, eye-candy, hope and change election results. You ridicule me for supporting him and then insinuate that I'm a racist. I think it's past your bedtime.
If they are young they might. If you are under 30, there is a TON of peer pressure to support Obama and to admit supporting Romney could have social consequences.
It has been said that if you are not a liberal when you're young, you have no heart, and if you're not a conservative when you get older, you have no brain...
I know perfectly well what equality is. I don't even know why you took the time to write that. You might want to take this with an alka-seltzer. Have a good night.
What does that tally of electoral votes have to do with equality? You do realize that the bush/kerry race is over don't you? Here is a hint, bush won
I don't think the topic of discussion was that blacks would lie about voting for Romney, but that they wouldn't "admit" it. There's a difference. You are all over the place. First you make fun of Herman Cain, a black man who has more accomplishments than Barack Obama will probably ever have, aside from his rock star, eye-candy, hope and change election results. You ridicule me for supporting him and then insinuate that I'm a racist. I think it's past your bedtime.
If someone asked you did you vote for mitt and they said "no" but did is'nt that the same as lying? Wow you must be mitt's campaign manager Herman was a lame and was not fit to be a dogcatcher hell even karl rove even admitted that he was not ready for the presidency. I never said that you were an actual racist, clueless maybe but not a racist
What does that tally of electoral votes have to do with equality? You do realize that the bush/kerry race is over don't you? Here is a hint, bush won
Do you happen to remember a while back.....a few minutes ago, when you told me to take the letter with a grain of salt? Did you read the letter? It talked about the generosity index. This is what it referred to. I couldn't find a chart with more recent figures, but they have the same findings. In other words, democrats love to TALK about helping the poor, and republicans actually GIVE to the poor. Democrats just love raking in those votes by saying how much they care about the less fortunate when in fact, they say, "The heck with them. Let's let the government give them a hand-out. I've already paid my taxes." Although, they do like to give to large universities and art museums, etc. for the rich to enjoy. Republicans pay taxes AND give to the needy, the churches (which also help the needy), etc.
If someone asked you did you vote for mitt and they said "no" but did is'nt that the same as lying? Wow you must be mitt's campaign manager Herman was a lame and was not fit to be a dogcatcher hell even karl rove even admitted that he was not ready for the presidency. I never said that you were an actual racist, clueless maybe but not a racist
I didn't mean they would answer "no," either. I meant they would keep it to themselves.
Your hatred is so uncalled for and so sad. This is what Obama has created: rich against middle class and poor; white against anyone non-white; gay against straight; democrat against republican; women who are pro-life against women who are pro-abortion; religion against religion, the list goes on. And he promised to unite this country. He was lying all along.
I wish you would wake up. You will be among the "rich" in Obama's global "equality" mission if he wins again. He wants to bring America down to bring the other countries up. He says this himself in a round-about way, but most are not listening. If he wins, you and so many others are going to look back and wonder what the heck happened, and Obama is going to tell you, "I told you so. Why didn't you believe me?"
Divide and conquer. It's sad.
And I said you "insinuated" I was a racist. Read the post you wrote to me above my post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.