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.
Hey, nice source for the "liberals are super smart" thing there OP!
Anyways, I never got around to the article itself which starts off with a completely bassackwards description of a liberal.
"It is difficult to define a whole school of political ideology precisely, but one may reasonably define liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others."
What he describes is actually a conservative and more specifically an evangelical Christian.
"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). -- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood. -- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush. -- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average. -- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent. -- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government. The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers"
Think Al Sharpton will come to the rescue if you fire them?
EEOC ever send out an investigator because a white guy got **** canned?
Yeah right.
It's a male and female...And because the last PM that I replaced didn't document their screw ups I'm precluded from firing either one until I have enough dirt documented to fire them.
So no...Al Sharpton won't be coming to the rescue...company headquarters in Virginia will.
It's a male and female...And because the last PM that I replaced didn't document their screw ups I'm precluded from firing either one until I have enough dirt documented to fire them.
So no...Al Sharpton won't be coming to the rescue...company headquarters in Virginia will.
So your company has a track record of firing whites without good reason?
How is that an assumption? We see that in the private sector Blacks, especially males, even college-educated males, are hired at rates far lower than their representation in society, but you assert that racism is not a factor.
How else would you explain it? Please refrain from idiotic racist right-wing boilerplate about how black people don't want to work and expect handouts. I'm not in the mood for such barnyard detritus.
The assumption is that only one reason exists for blacks not being hired when the truth is that their may be any number of reasons and while white racism might be one of those reasons, there is no proof that it is.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 17 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,528,077 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover
Oh, but it is Charity.
The majority of churches use donations to self sustain, that is not charity.
Only a very small percentage actually go out and use their cash for the better good. Let me be clear, most churches would do more if they could, im not arguing that. Im just saying calling it charity to keep the churches lights on, is disingenuous to what we are actually talking about in the quote text.
We vote for whom we feel like voting for. You're not owed an explanation.
Fine, as long as Blacks stop whining about how oppressed they think they are. Blacks keep voting for their oppressors, so why do they expect any different?
Remember, 67% of Black adults support school vouchers. Democrats are vehemently opposed to them. As long as Blacks keep deliberately voting to keep their children disproportionately under-educated and therefore poor, expect the White/Black income and wealth gap to increase. Just don't complain about it because that's what Blacks vote for, time and time again.
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.
