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.
If the Red Cross went to any factory or retail store in the USA and the management let the workers have 30 mins to donate blood- staggered throughout the day- I bet 50% or more would do so.
Our Blood Banks REGUARLY set up outside of department stores (including WalMart and Target) and shopping centers.
It only makes sense to go where they are easy to get to and where the most people will be
I don't agree that the hourly worker does not give blood -
Big deal. The premise of the argument is that giving to charity is a good thing. I think donations to charity would be better spent going to a poof of money that can be used to help everybody, not just the selected few. But then, that seems to be the Republian philosophy - helping a select few - so I'm not surprised that conservatives think charities are wonderful.
You can't count on a charity to stay in business, and you can't count on people to continue giving to charities - especially when economic times are difficult.
Charities also discriminate against those who don't meet their standards. Religious charities have been known to try to recruit new members in exchange for the help they're giving.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,018,776 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miborn
Bleeding Heart Tightwads
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: December 20, 2008
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.
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.
Location: The Chatterdome in La La Land, CaliFUNia
39,031 posts, read 23,018,776 times
Reputation: 36027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kereczr
Well I tried to give blood until they told me that they don't want my gay blood for safety reasons. Yup, been in a relationship with the same person for years, only have had intercourse with three people in my life and I can't give blood. Meanwhile they gladly took blood from my friend who is a bit of a s***. I know of at least 10 different girls he has had sex with. Three of which I know he had no condom.
They do that to reduce the risk of AIDS but they should also do more careful screening of heterosexuals as they can also contract AIDS with risky sexual behavior.
They do that to reduce the risk of AIDS but they should also do more careful screening of heterosexuals as they can also contract AIDS with risky sexual behavior.
Connie let me remind you that I am a nurse, so before you make yourself appear foolish, by telling my why they use some outdated, ineffective screening method, just keep that in mind. First they screen for HIV, not AIDS. Secondly, there are other methods and testing routes available to ensure the viability of each patch of blood. The questionnaire, as it currently stands, is nearly useless. Its funny, they didn't want my blood but took my whorish friends in a heartbeat. Does that sound effective to you? On top of that, I am a universal donor.
Its funny, they didn't want my blood but took my whorish friends in a heartbeat. Does that sound effective to you? On top of that, I am a universal donor.
It's an outrage. If you've had 10,000 heterosexual sex partners, your blood is accepted. If you had one homosexual encounter 30 years ago, your blood is rejected.
You can't count on a charity to stay in business, and you can't count on people to continue giving to charities - especially when economic times are difficult.
People give to charities all the time. I have been regularly donating to Goodwill for as long as I can remember. They are tax exempt and get all kinds of contributions, even from the government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Charities also discriminate against those who don't meet their standards. Religious charities have been known to try to recruit new members in exchange for the help they're giving.
Usually the "standards" of a charity are low, if nonexistent. I did charity work for a local group, and for my old church a number of times, and basically we gave to everyone who came to us.
So what if religious charities try to recruit new members? I've seen many folks who came to our soup kitchens and dinners who politely rejected joining the church, and we provided for them anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Charities. No thanks. I'm not impressed.
I take it you have never done any kind of humanitarian work, or anything charitable? If you had, you would realize these people need help, no matter who it comes from.
I trust a private charity 100x more than a government system with no oversight.
I take it you have never done any kind of humanitarian work, or anything charitable? If you had, you would realize these people need help, no matter who it comes from.
I trust a private charity 100x more than a government system with no oversight.
A government system has less oversight than a private charity? No, I don't think so.
I'll admit I was maybe too extreme with some of my words. I have done volunteer work for nonprofit organizations that are, essentially, charities.
My strong reaction was to the idea that we shouldn't have a social safety net run by the government, and the belief that charities should be the primary source for helping the poor and others who need help.
A government system has less oversight than a private charity? No, I don't think so.
They are required to. Else they can't receive government checks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
I'll admit I was maybe too extreme with some of my words. I have done volunteer work for nonprofit organizations that are, essentially, charities.
No biggie. I have done the same on some hot button issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
My strong reaction was to the idea that we shouldn't have a social safety net run by the government, and the belief that charities should be the primary source for helping the poor and others who need help.
In my experience, the needy are more receptive of the personal confrontations they receive through charities.
It just seems to me that those who make an effort to receive help are more deserving than those who apply for welfare and then wait on their check. I have seen the same needy folks come back and actually help us to help others. Rarely do you get that from those on welfare.
This country isn't as heartless as MSNBC or FOX would lead us to believe.
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.
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.
