I have not read either of his books, but
Posted By: Kiki on 2008-09-19
In Reply to: A couple of quotes from Obama books to consider - DNH
I would be interested in seeing the whole paragraph at the very least that these were taken from, and better still the whole chapter. I'm not saying he isn't racist, but you can't just put out a sentence of 2 of what you want people to see.
I have a friend who is like Obama, her mother was white and her father black. All of the things I am reading from your post are somewhat similar to what she has said to me before. She never really felt like she belonged anywhere. She is lighter skinned so some of the black people she knew would question her about that, and she said she too would stop telling people because no matter what she would be treated different by some people. And, I have seen first hand with her, that some white people would treat her terribly because she had a black father. So she would start to have an animosity towards whites. Like he says in that sentence, sometimes she did feel that she would have to prove that she was "black enough" (her words) to some people. To prove that she was loyal to her father's race. Does that make her racist? I don't think so. She said, and I could see too as we grew up together, that it was really confusing to her growing up. She felt like she didn't really belong anywhere. Now, in her 30s, she said she has learned to just be herself for the first time. She is black and she is white, she tries not to associate to either but to both. She said sometimes it is still hard because with some people they want you to be one or the other.
The last part you have from Dreams of My Father - what is wrong with that? I am taking from it he is trying to be his own man, not trying to be like white men or brown men, and that he all the things he looks up to about being a black man are from the men listed.
The last sentence, like I said I would like to see the whole paragraph or section. But I have just 1 question for you - what is wrong with being a Muslim? I know some Muslims and they are peaceful and would never think of hurting anyone. I have never read it all but what I have seen of the Koran it advocates peace. It is unfortunate that the extremists of their religion are tainting everyone else. These extremists are using the Muslim religion to hide behind for their own hate and personal agenda. I am not Muslim, but lets not forget that there are plenty of Christian extremists too and I would never identify myself with one of them.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
How many of his books have you read?
nm
read the books of Daniel and sm
Revelation
Read Obama's two books, his own words...
and then come and tell us he is not a socialist leaning heavily toward Marxism...with a straight face. Just admit it, you know he is a socalist, leaning Marxist, and you don't care. Be honest with us and yourself.
The first time either Obama or Biden have to face other than softball questions and they run under the porch whining.
Whether or not someone leans Marxist is a valid question. That neither one of them has answered. Obama KNOWS what he is. He just doesn't want YOU to know what he is.
So far as I know there is not a law on the books...
against killing cattle...or hogs...but there IS one about killing humans.
I thought there was already a law on the books about...
the drivers licenses...I thought that was already passed as a law, to be implemented by 2008? What I read about it, it is not actually a national driver's license per se, but makes the states comply with the same set of rules (and that IS needed) about dispensing driver's licenses. I didn't read anything about Homeland Security. I guess they could be changing it, as the states were lamenting they thought they could not get ready for it that fast. However, when I moved to the state I now reside in, they were already doing the birth certificate thing and that was four years ago. To change my DL from the state I was moving from to where I moved I had to provide my birth certificate and it had to be the original or a copy with state seal, to prove I was a US citizen. And again, that was four years ago. But, as we all know, not all states are that vigilant.
As to the email and the phone conversations....I think that is blown out of proportion. I don't think the government has the time or the inclination to listen in to everyone's phone calls or read everyone's emails. I would bore them to death in 15 minutes. I was under the impression that they still had to have a judge's order (albeit they can get them much faster) to do that.
Okay...no big government, I get that. Can we extend that to social programs as well, and keep big government out of my pockets, while we are at it?
I think, if you look around, the billionaires in business are regulated. Tat is one of the reasons so much of it went to China (thank you Bill Clinton),and other countries. That's why the billionaires in Hollyweird now go to Canada to make films instead of keeping the money at home (while all the time telling us how much they care about the *common people*). And flying all over creation, which each east to west coast flight dumps more carbon into the atmosphere than a year's worth of most cars. I'm sorry, I don't think liberals are doing a great job on conservation either, Lurker. CLinton and Gore had 8 years to do something...I don't see where they did much either, frankly.
new phone books with
much larger print.
its more than losing books
that concerns me. It is the mindset that her beliefs are the only true ones and that information and opinions that differ from hers should not be available to United States citizens. That is down-right mindblowing.
lots of books on this - even old ones
http://www.amazon.com/Fourth-Turning-Str-William/dp/0767900464/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223520209&sr=8-1
NY has had laws on the books for
over 5 years. No smoking just about anywhere except Indian-owned casinos and private clubs that do not have employees. No Smoking in bars, restaurants, etc.
I for one, love it!
Books have been written
on the insidious & frightening merging of the right wing (currently occupied by the republican party) and the Christian religion. Certainly there are individual exceptions, but the political party defines itself in large part by its religious beliefs, which as I understand from the media and from the posts on this very board, involves preservation of life at all costs, period. Here's a scary watch: The documentary "Jesus Camp."
As far as my world view being narrow, I would say that the difference is that I'm willing to let people believe whatever they want to believe, & if I don't like it I can change channels. As opposed to Christians (granted, maybe the most vocal ones, who are the only ones I've had occasion to hear), who do not appear to be satisfied until everyone thinks the way they do. I think everyone has a right to personal beliefs, but that right STOPS at the point where it infringes on my own. As opposed to Christians (ditto above reference) who seem quite happy to legislate the world to their own belief system. To me, that's what the narrowness involves.
Teddy wrote books about something other than himself!
You can hardly compare Obama's narcissistic biographies with Teddy's books where he researched and wrote about something other than himself!
His books are selling like hotcakes.
x
Well, if you want to call your idol's own books...
garbage...fine by me. Several of my posts have come directly from his books. Like his Marxist connections from day one. From his own mouth..errr pen. But of course, asking you to actually read his words would be wayyyy too much to ask wouldn't it?
Ohhhhbaaaamaaaaa.
My mother still has one of those ration books........ sm
but I believe it was from WWII rather than the earlier Great Depression. I can remember her telling me that things like leather, rubber, automobiles, and nylon were rationed also during WWII as the bulk of those things went for "The War Effort."
if you enjoy books about religion
you should read "Under the Banner of Heaven" by Jon Krakauer. It is about some of the fundamentalist Mormon beliefs -- and no, I am not bashing Mormons, just a lot of interesting history and insight into some of these zealots, not regular Mormons.
This so reminds me of one of those baby books
people put together for their first kid. Video of the delivery. Baby's handprint and footprint. Lock of hair from Baby's first haircut. Picture of Baby taking his first step. First tooth Baby loses, and on and on and on.....
What's the followup plan for the 200th day and the 300th? I'd like to pencil this on my calendar.
Rupert Murdoch, GW, & Co. are buying up all her books LOL, sm
like they say the Scientologists buy Cruise's movie tickets. She is a good servant for those in the shadows, so I am sure she is highly paid, just like those gas bags Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly. No one with a conscience would do what they do unless it involved a lot of money.
A couple of quotes from Obama books to consider
From Dreams of My Father:'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'
From Dreams of My Father : 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'
From Dreams of My Father:'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'
From Dreams of My Father: 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'
From Dreams of My Father:'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'
And FINALLY the Most damaging one of ALL of them!!!
From Audacity of Hope:'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'
I grew up Baptist, and we thoroughly studied both books
And, as always, we picked and chose that which we would apply to our lives, and how we would interpret what it said.
You know the only things I took away from my childhood religion?
"Love your sisters and brothers."
"Judge not, lest ye be judged."
"Do unto others as you would have done to you."
And having studied the Nag Hammadi library, which gave much, much more insight into what Jesus recommended, it seems as if that - believe it or not - is exactly what he meant.
So when you say someone is "wrong," you are judging them. When you are asking someone to change their lives to accommodate your beliefs, you are doing unto them something you're asking not be done to you. And I believe we can agree that love is unconditional (something I believe 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 alluded to), regardless of what other's choices are - even if you disagree with them.
What you call so-called history is on the books
if you care to search for it. It is no secret Israel provided gun power to Hamas a long time ago to ward off the PLO......who do you think gave Israel all the weaponery to give to them? China? Then when Hamas becomes entrenched within the Palestinian people and over time basically becomes their government, what do you think they are going to do.....the same as many others that have been given weapons; they turn on the ones that put them there in the first place, simply because they feel no loyalty toward Israel...they hate Israel.....they hate Jews. Simple as that.
You act as if this is not facts. I don't know how old you are but if you are my age, you would certainly remember the PLO and all before them and everything after them. These terrorists groups didn't sprout overnight; they were made!
I don't for a minute think Hamas actually cares for their citizens; it's all a means to an end with them. They use their people as human shields because they are cowards but of course, when Israel kills their innocent, they can scream Israel is murdering their women and children; of course Hamas takes no responsibility for what they do.
Are there any good books on *the radical terrorist mind*? sm
and whose the author?
you're wrong, S. FLA the illegals paid on the books
at least the ones I know.....the ones who did arrive with at least a visa.....and who get paid off a company payroll and not off the books or in cash is what I mean....
This looks interesting. A long read, so will read it when I get home from work. nm
nm
Obviously u didnt read, I said NONE of them are moral. Read the post before spouting off.
I read on CNN (yes, I do read liberal stuff too..hehe)...sm
...that Karl Rove was actually very disappointed in the McCain campaign for airing negative type ads against Obama.
So I would say that Rove is definitely not in the hip pocket of the McCain campaign.
Good research sam - but a lot to read right now so gotta read it later
I've been goofing off too much from work. I appreciate what you wrote and will read when I'm done with work here.
sorry, should read I did not read post that way.
,
All you have to do is read up on Marxism, read up on...
black liberation theology, and look at what Obama is proposing. All of it a matter of public record, most of it from his own mouth. Your denial of it does not change the facts. If you support socialism, vote for him. Certainly your right. You are already wanting to squelch any kind of dissent...what's up with that? If you seriously consider calling someone a socialist a smear, you really need to read up on your candidate. I did not post a smear, I posted a fact. Redistribution of wealth is socialist and he already said he was going to do it...I heard him say it and it is now a campaign commercial. Sigh.
Some on this board can only read what they want to read (nm)
x
READ THE ARTICLE-READ OTHER
READERS COMMENTS!!!
Nan please read what I have to say
I've read your latest posts. You fit the decription of a troll at times, but I don't really care about that. DOesn't matter. What I do notice is that you incite other posters with calculated insults, condescension and twisted and sometimes cruel logic. Then when the object of your insults becomes angry and lashes back you pretend to be an unfairly accused innocent and the object of someone else's crazy, uncalled-for rage.
This is compatible with borderline personality disorder. My mother had it, a brother-in-law battles it and I am all too familiar with it.
I did read it.
Not posting the whole article puts the quote out of context. It's not really a way to do things on a chat forum, but then maybe you don't post in a lot of other forums. Those I frequent always post the whole article or at least a link. It would give you a lot more credibility. Take it for what it's worth.
Read this...
Pandora's Box
September 22, 2005
By Ken Sanders
You have to hand it to the Bush administration. No matter how bad things might be in Iraq, and no matter how dim the prospects are for Iraq's future, Bush & Co. still manage to look the public straight in the eye, smirk, and insist that the decision to invade Iraq was a good one. Call them determined, even stubborn. Call them dishonest, perhaps delusional. Regardless, the fact is that by invading Iraq, the Bush administration opened a Pandora's Box with global consequences.
Bush and his apologists have frequently promised that the invasion of Iraq will spread democracy and stability throughout the entire Middle East. That naive declaration could not be farther from the truth. Not only is Iraq itself in the clutches of a civil war, the U.S.-led invasion threatens to destabilize the whole of the Middle East, if not the world. It may have irrevocably done so already.
By most definitions and standards, Iraq is already in the throes of civil war. Whether defined as an internal conflict resulting in at least 1,000 combat-related fatalities, five percent of which are sustained by government and rebel forces; or as organized violence designed to change the governance of a country; or as a systematic and coordinated sectarian-based conflict; the requirements of civil war have long since been satisfied.
While our television screens are saturated by images of chaos and death in Iraq, the stories beneath the images are even more disturbing. Purely sectarian attacks, largely between Iraq's Sunni and Shiite populations, have been rising dramatically for months. According to Iraqi government statistics, such targeted attacks have doubled over the past twelve months. Police in Iraq are finding scores of bodies littering the streets, bodies of people who were blindfolded or handcuffed, shot or beheaded. The Baghdad morgue is constantly overwhelmed by bodies showing tell-tale signs of torture and gradual, drawn-out, agonizing death.
In Baghdad, Sunni neighborhoods live in fear of Shiite death squads like the Iranian-backed Badr Brigade of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Iraq's leading Shiite governing coalition. Such death squads operate openly, in full uniform, and with the deliberate ignorance, if not outright sanction, of the Iraqi government. On a single day in August, the bodies of 36 Sunni Arabs were found blindfolded, handcuffed, tortured and executed in a dry riverbed in the Shiite-dominated Wasit province.
At the other end, Shiites face each day burdened by the terror and trauma of being the targets of constant suicide bombings. The army and police recruits killed by suicide bombs are predominantly Shia. In Ramadi, a Sunni stronghold, Shiites are fleeing their homes, driven out by murder and intimidation. On August 17, 43 Shiites were killed by bombings at a bus stop and then at the hospital where the casualties were to be treated.
There are less-violent examples of the deepening rifts between Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites since the U.S.-led invasion. By some estimates, nearly half of the weddings performed in Baghdad before the invasion were of mixed Sunni/Shiite couples. Since the invasion and its resulting instability and strife, such mixed weddings are all but extinct. This new-found reluctance of Sunnis and Shiites to marry each other is just another indication of the increasing isolation and animosity between the two populations.
The recently finalized Iraqi constitution does little to bridge Iraq's growing sectarian divides. The culmination of sectarian feuds passing for political debates, Iraq's constitution only ratifies the sectarian divisions of the nation. In the north are the Kurds who long ago abandoned their Iraqi identity, refusing to even fly the Iraqi flag. In the south is a burgeoning Shiite Islamic state, patterned after and influenced by Iran. Both groups have divvied up Iraq's oil reserves amongst themselves. Left in the nation's oil-free center are the Sunni Arabs, dismissed as obstructionist by the Kurds and Shiites. So unconcerned are the Kurds and Shiites with a unified Iraq that they both maintain their own large and heavily-armed militias.
Of course, the constitution still has to be ratified. If it is ratified, it will likely be by a Shiite/Kurdish minority, effectively maintaining the status quo that motivates, in part, the Sunni-led insurgency. If, on the other hand, the constitution is defeated, there's little reason not to believe that the three major factions in Iraq won't resort to forcibly taking what they want. Either way, in the words of one Iraqi civilian, God help us.
The discord in Iraq is not limited to fighting between Shiites and Sunnis. In Basra, for instance, rival Shiite militia groups constantly fight each other. The notorious Badr Brigade, backed by SCIRI, have repeatedly clashed with dissident cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi militia. The Badr Brigade frequently works in conjunction with Basra police and are suspected of recently kidnapping and killing two journalists. Suspecting that the Basra police have been infiltrated by both the Badr and Mehdi militias, the British military sent in two undercover operatives to make arrests. The British operatives were themselves arrested by the Basra police. When the British went to liberate their men, they found themselves exchanging fire with the Basra police, their heretofore allies, and smashing through the prison walls with armored vehicles.
Iraqis aren't merely growing increasingly alienated from each other, as well as progressively opposed to coalition forces. Iraq's estrangement from the rest of the Middle East and the Arab world is widening as well. Seen more and more as a proxy of the Iranian government, the Shiite/Kurd dominated Iraq finds itself at odds with the Sunni-dominated Middle East. For instance, since the U.S.-led invasion, not a single Middle East nation has sent an ambassador to Baghdad. And, despite promises to do so, the Arab League (of which Iraq was a founder) has yet to open a Baghdad office.
There are, clearly, many reasons other than sectarianism for Iraq's estrangement from the Middle East and Arab nations, security being the foremost. However, Iraqi diplomacy, or lack thereof, is also to blame. From chiding Qatar for sending aid to Katrina victims but not to Iraq, to arguing with Kuwait over border issues, to blaming Syria for the insurgency, Iraq's fledgling government seems to have taken diplomacy lessons from the Bush administration. In fact, with the exception of Iran, Iraq has butted heads recently with nearly every Middle East nation.
Iraq's constitution hasn't won it any friends in the Arab world, either. For instance, Iraq drew strong condemnation from the Arab world when a draft of its constitution read that just its Arab people are part of the Arab nation. Only after the outcry from the Arab League and numerous Arab nations, did Iraq change its constitution's offending language. (The argument by Bush's apologists that the Iraqi constitution's alleged enshrinement of democratic principles threatens neighboring countries is unconvincing. Syria and Egypt both have constitutions that guarantee political and individual freedoms. In practice, however, such guarantees have proven meaningless. Why, then, should they feel threatened?)
Iraq's varied relationships with Middle Eastern nations will be immeasurably significant should Iraq descend further into civil war. For example, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan would most likely come to the support of Iraq's Sunnis. (There are already signs that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq has impacted Saudi Arabia's Sunni population. According to a recent study, the invasion of Iraq has radicalized previously non-militant Saudis, sickened by the occupation of an Arab nation by non-Arabs.) Iran would only increase its already staunch support for Iraq's Shiites. Turkey would also likely be drawn in, hoping to prevent any Kurdish success in Iraq from spilling across its border. Moreover, Iraq's violent Sunni-Shiite discord could easily spark similar strife in Middle East countries like Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.
In such a worst-case scenario, Iraq's instability would spread and infect an already unstable region. If the Gulf region were to further destabilize, so too would the global economy as oil prices would skyrocket, plunging the U.S. and so many others into recession.
Put another way, Bush's illegal, ill-conceived, short-sighted, and naive venture in Iraq could reasonably result in total chaos in not just Iraq and the Middle East, but the world over.
A Pandora's Box, if there ever was one.
Sorry, but can you read?
pizza. Don't you think they've thought of moving? It isn't always practical to simply uproot. In this case, there is an elderly family member and children. Again, from the throne passing judgement.
This makes no sense: I'm talking about a certain segment of our society who refuse to learn, refuse to work, and who YOU wish to bring up to an equal place as the rest of society who works hard and earns what they have. Huh? You still missed the point...good grief.
I read that. And then MT goes on
to criticize you for suggesting that posters visit eXtremely Political and is aghast at the post that calls for shooting someone who doesn't agree...... she just FAILS to mention that it's a NEOCON who wants to shoot LIBERALS!!!
This is what she wrote:
Sorry, had to answer this one. There have a Whine to Management option. That is PERFECT for gt. Talking about shooting other posters, atheism and porno. Yeah, that's a great place alright. And now they have THE gt as a member. Does it get any better than that. Although, my thoughts are they won't suffer her long. Those people are pirrhanas.
Well, if that ain't the pirrhana calling the shark hungry!
Perhaps you need to read
No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor... otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief... All men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and... the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:302, Papers 2:546
Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. --Thomas Jefferson: Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. ME 2:301, Papers 2:545
We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church. --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:546
I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.
I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378
Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine. --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198
and many more: http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
You need to read that again.
Yes, it is US law, according to the Constitution.
The United States signed the UN Charter -- which is a treaty. Let me repeat:
Article VI of the U.S. Constitution makes treaties into which the U.S. has entered the supreme Law of the Land.
In other words, we made a treaty with a bunch of other countries to abide by certain rules, including the use of force. Since we entered into this treaty with the UN, that makes it the supreme Law of the Land -- US Law.
Sure, you can say, So what? Nobody's going to take us to court. We can do anything we want. But if we as a country aren't going to respect our agreements with other countries and our own laws, why should anybody else? Nobody is above the law, right?
By the way, I think we were fully justified in invading Afghanistan.
I have read this...
So what. At one point you say he was involved with AIM and had a lackey break someone's arm. Now you are providing us with an article that disavows any connection with AIM at all. Which is it? Could it be that some folks who were involved with AIM in the late 60s early 70s are no longer involved, or are dead or have had major disagreements along the way about what should be done. Banks, Russell Means and Peltier don't even speak to each other any more. That is sad, in my opinion. Trudell, on the other hand, is still around. (I had the pleasure of meeting him last Saturday in Hollywood Florida at the Native American Music Awards) and still fights the good fight although his wife and children were burned to death in an FBI arson. There is a video, called simply Trudell. It has aired on PBS stations. It is also available from Trudell's web site. It you get a chance, see it. There is so much information out there that no one seems to care much about as regards the American Indian from Columbus to today. The history is always written by the victor and the American Indian history is distorted.
You can read whatever you want...
into what people say. Some are not very tactful and some, like our president, just can't get a syntax together to save their souls. I still think the sentiment was not that these Americans do not want democracy. I still think they thought we **deserved** to be surprised because we have ignored Middle East history, the British colonization, the politics, the culture, the nature of Islam when, in reality, bearing in mind our support for Israel and our dismissal of the Arab states, it should not have been a surprise. This has been brewing for quite some time. That is not the same thing. I really don't know what those 2 had in their hearts but I truly believe that one saying the US has treated the Arab states badly in the past does not make one a **terrorist** or a communist or a democracy hater. These people attempt to see all sides of things, in all colors, not just black and white. Those are the people who will ultimately garner peace if it is at all possible. It will not come at the barrel of a gun, no matter what has happened in the past.
Yep, I know, I can read. NM
Well, I don't read the
leftist blogs or any other blogs for that matter, too much like talk radio. I also don't need to plagerize anything; I can think for myself, thank you very much.
I have read this one over and over...s/m
What has happened in this country over the years? Why the almost blind acceptance of things, almost anything that is done? Where are the idealistic youth? Their future is at stake, so many, many issues, yet, where are they? Why the banket of almost deafening silence? It scares me.
have you read...
anything written by Michelle Obama? she is truly a racist. Your remarks about her scare me. Make sure you are truly informed. John McCain is a down-to-earth person who would do well in office, but the reality is no president can make the changes outlined above. It takes all the members of the house and senate to begin to make change, not just one man.
Where can we read about this? TIA - nm
can't read and can't
recognize inappropriate behavior in temprament. Oy.
Read it before....
....Opinion section can state anything they want to, and so can you.
So can I.
Seems to me, though, are those three tiny words by Gov. Palin, that are given very little credence here:
"Hold me accountable."
I kinda have the feeling that she doesn't have much to hide here, having read other parts of this story before too.
So bring it on.
I have the feeling that Gov. Palin will come out on top.
And you believe everything you read on the net?
XO
Have you read it? nm
nm
We both must have read something different....sm
Quotes from the first article:
Charity's Political Divide
Republicans give a bigger share of their incomes to charity, says a prominent economist
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
Mr. Brooks agreed that he needed to tackle politics. He writes that households headed by a conservative give roughly 30 percent more to charity each year than households headed by a liberal, despite the fact that the liberal families on average earn slightly more.
Most of the difference in giving among conservatives and liberals gets back to religion. Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals.
Well if you read, why do we have to? nm
nm
Then you don't read enough.
nm
|
