Scrooge was a liberal.

http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printer_......icle=402

Carrie

A series of one-sentence paragraphs, each one name-calling? This contains no ideas worthy of the name.

John

Really?

"Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks' study of charitable giving in America found that conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than liberals do, despite the fact that liberals have higher incomes than conservatives."

"On average, a person who attends religious services and does not believe in the redistribution of income will give away 100 times more – and 50 times more to secular charities – than a person who does not attend religious services and strongly believes in the redistribution of income."

I think these are ideas worth discussing, especially given Scrooge's words in A Christmas Carol:

"I help to support the [prisons, Union workhouses, Treadmill and the Poor Law] establishments that I have mentioned--they cost enough--and those who are badly off must go there."

Are you going to just criticize the writing style, or are you going to offer something substantive to the discussion?

Carrie

Without even clicking I have to say that ANN COULTER IS A CRAZED PERSON WHO NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND PAYS ATTENTION TO. She is way below Billo, and Glenn. Really, she is a joke-and to everyone a joke. I mean everyone- seriously, everyone. She is a joke.

Now who's the name-caller?

Labels do not make arguments.

Carrie

Ahh, how refreshing. She always has such a pointed tip to all of here "work", always after those crazy nasty "liberals".

It the season-and godless liberals (and she knows all of us, so she can make that statement) are calling for the "redistribution of income by government force", citing the bible? Oh, is this a big thing now? Good, cause I haven't heard word one.

" abortion on demand" laughable. Yes, this is what we want!! Scream it from the roof tops. She cannpt be serious on this. I can see the references to certain forms of "art" (is it maplethorpe?) but that is a bit dated-nothing more current Ann?

Then she weaves her web, maybe hinting that Al Franken is the devil, and then drops this one "They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do. " regarding taxes. Ann, why not make an untrue statement? It shouldn't bother you, its common and your "readers" wont catch it.



It doesn't need, or deserve, line by line reworking or rebutting, just deletion.

Carrie, I said she is a joke-which she clearly is, and we all know it. I also said she was crazy. Nothing really out of the ordinary, it wasn't name calling

Not sure if you are familiar with her "work", but that it how it normally is. I think all of her books have one word titles, but no pictures

Are you admitting you're a godless liberal?

Hyperbole is the way Coulter makes her points. She's not a joke for doing that. She's brilliant.

Carrie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayW4c9aZXyw

Well, I guess you got me there. But is that some type of device? Is it written to annoy, to get my blood up? If so, it fails. If she makes her points with hyperbole, that's is her choice-I just don't see her making any points-and the one's that she makes are not helped by her language. You are right, that is not what makes her a joke. Brilliant is not a word I would use-she is as brilliant as I am John Lennon.

I did not care for the way that was written, as far as an attempt to make a point. I take offence at the "godless liberals" comment, being "godless" but NOT "liberal."

That being said, I do NOT think Dickens was trying to convey that Scrooge WANTED to support said institutions. It would be no different than you, Carrie, saying to someone asking for donations, "Don't my taxes already support this stuff?"
It's not saying you AGREE with it being done with your taxes, it's a statement that it IS supported with your taxes.

I doubt Scrooge would have liked ANY of his money going to hose institutions, via taxes, or otherwise.

That being said, in the end, Scrooge "changes his ways" for entirely selfish reasons.

Do you mean he turns selfless because of selfishness?

I don't follow.

Carrie

P.S. kcg5, her point is simply that the liberals who tell us we need to take care of the poor -- and who advocate for higher taxes on "the rich" to pay for it -- do not do as good a job of doing that themselves as the conservatives who maintain we must keep government out of it. Charity forced is not charity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7NfDuDh0Uc

So you post that to say what, exactly?

Carrie

Have you read Brooks's book? I have only seen a few pages on Google Books, so I wasn't able to find out about his methodology. How is measuring "liberal", "conservative", "charitable donation", etc.? Is he analyzing the donations to get rid of "outlier" effects? (e.g. zero donations, and donations of billions totally screw up the calculation of averages).

Coulter's partisan screed is of no interest to me, as she provides no argumentation or evidence, but runs a series of 1-sentence accusations that would get a failing mark in a Grade 10 Social Studies paper (at least where I live).

But if you have any access to the meat of Brooks's argument, that would be worth investigating.

John

Cut and pasted from the web:

In April 2008, Brooks published a survey and analysis of U.S. happiness research entitled Gross National Happiness: Why Happiness Matters for America—and How We Can Get More of It. ...

Who Really Cares was widely reviewed and critiqued. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered. Eugene Volokh writes, "Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate."

---

Balducci here again ...

If you include data since 2008, in particular the billionaires who gave at the givingpledge.org site, I imagine the numbers will probably tilt in favor of the liberals.

Since we are looking at studies of who is more likely to do what...I think these might be of interest-
Christian Fundamentalists more likely to commit abuse
http://lubbockonline.com/faith/2010-07-1......ut-abuse
Atheists commit fewer crimes than the religious
http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/athe......gious-do
Societies are worse off when they have "God on their side"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
Again...I am not an atheist. I just found these interesting. Anyone want to shed light on why this would be?
Gwyd

Why do some people confuse "godless" with "just not your god" and "not only your god"?

Often wondered that myself...