Was Scrooge a Liberal Democrat?

[Soul Crusher]

SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:00:00 AM
www.anncoulter.com




It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7)

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)

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.

In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.

His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.



Read more at AnnCoulter.Com

[MCWAY]

SCROOGE WAS A LIBERAL
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 12:00:00 AM
www.anncoulter.com




It's the Christmas season, so godless liberals are citing the Bible to demand the redistribution of income by government force. Didn't Jesus say, "Blessed are the Health and Human Services bureaucrats, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven"?

Liberals are always indignantly accusing conservatives of claiming God is on our side. What we actually say is: We're on God's side, particularly when liberals are demanding God's banishment from the public schools, abortion on demand, and taxpayer money being spent on Jesus submerged in a jar of urine and pictures of the Virgin Mary covered with pornographic photos.

But for liberals like Al Franken, it's beyond dispute that Jesus would support extending federal unemployment insurance.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the Bible, but it does nicely illustrate Shakespeare's point that the "devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."

What the Bible says about giving to the poor is: "Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." (2 Corinthians (9:7)

Being forced to pay taxes under penalty of prison is not voluntary and rarely done cheerfully. Nor do our taxes go to "the poor." They mostly go to government employees who make more money than you do.

The reason liberals love the government redistributing money is that it allows them to skip the part of charity that involves peeling the starfish off their wallets and forking over their own money. This, as we know from study after study, they cannot bear to do. (Unless they are guaranteed press conferences where they can brag about their generosity.)

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.

In his book "Who Really Cares?" Brooks compared the charitable donations of religious conservatives, secular liberals, secular conservatives and "religious" liberals.

His surprising conclusion was ... Al Franken gave the most of all!

Ha ha! Just kidding. Religious conservatives, the largest group at about 20 percent of the population, gave the most to charity -- $2,367 per year, compared with $1,347 for the country at large.

Even when it comes to purely secular charities, religious conservatives give more than other Americans, which is surprising because liberals specialize in "charities" that give them a direct benefit, such as the ballet or their children's elite private schools.



Read more at AnnCoulter.Com

This isn't really surprising at all. Liberals are always better at spending YOUR money than they are spending their own, when it comes to charity.

Actually, I should be more specific. Coulter cited this study on the O'Reilly Factor. The claim is that religious conservatives give the most, followed by religious liberals, in third place secular conservatives, and in DEAD LAST PLACE.....(surprise, surprise  ) secular liberals.

That pretty much make sense. I mean, when is the last time you saw a bunch of humanists giving away Thanksgiving baskets, singing to old people in nursing homes, using humanist centers to feed the homeless and hungry? Or running homeless shelters? (Nearly all such shelters are run by religious institutions).

And, I don't see any "Rationalist Army" (as opposed to the Salvation Army) ringing bells with kettles collecting money.

[240 is Back]

there is no lonlier place at christmas than ann coulter's heart.


epic effort on her part to remain relevant when even FOX won't touch her that much anymore.

[Straw Man]

per Wiki

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

I figured as much.

when you take out money given to their churches their is hardly any difference.  I wonder why Coulter didn't mention that

I have some clients who give a shit load of money to a christian church in San Jose and the pastor of that church (or whatever he is) drives around in an AMG Mercedes with vanity plates that say "The Rev".     I laugh out loud at the scam this guy is running whenever I see him driving around town.

[Soul Crusher]

Did they get a write off? 

[MCWAY]

per Wiki

I figured as much.

when you take out money given to their churches their is hardly any difference.  I wonder why Coulter didn't mention that

I have some clients who give a shit load of money to a christian church in San Jose and the pastor of that church (or whatever he is) drives around in an AMG Mercedes with vanity plates that say "The Rev".     I laugh out loud at the scam this guy is running whenever I see him driving around town.

And the reason you don't count religious giving would be....

Bottom line: You either give to the less fortunate or you don't. At the end of the day, the liberals who run their mouths about how people should be excessively taxed to give to the poor are the stingiest with their wallets, when NO ONE FORCES THEM to cough up the cash. Plus, if all these liberal/progressive billionaires feel that strongly about paying more taxes, what's stopping them from scratching checks to the IRS, ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL?

Again, where are the secular liberals handing out the food baskets, running the homeless shelters, using their edifices as disaster relief places, singing to old people in nursing homes, etc.?

Yes, many churches have such humanitarian institutions built into their ministries, making the congregation's ability to donate somewhat easier. But, at the end of the day, they still have to give up the money. And, that doesn't take into account volunteer work.

Case in point: I just heard from an old lady that one of the local church schools in my denomination may close up shop, if they don't get some financial help. So, I decided to use what's normally my tithe to give to that school to help them out. I may do that again, next payday as well.

[Straw Man]

And the reason you don't count religious giving would be....
Bottom line: You either give to the less fortunate or you don't. At the end of the day, the liberals who run their mouths about how people should be excessively taxed to give to the poor are the stingiest with their wallets, when NO ONE FORCES THEM to cough up the cash. Plus, if all these liberal/progressive billionaires feel that strongly about paying more taxes, what's stopping them from scratching checks to the IRS, ON THEIR OWN FREE WILL?

Again, where are the secular liberals handing out the food baskets, running the homeless shelters, using their edifices as disaster relief places, singing to old people in nursing homes, etc.?

Yes, many churches have such humanitarian institutions built into their ministries, making the congregation's ability to donate somewhat easier. But, at the end of the day, they still have to give up the money. And, that doesn't take into account volunteer work.

Case in point: I just heard from an old lady that one of the local church schools in my denomination may close up shop, if they don't get some financial help. So, I decided to use what's normally my tithe to give to that school to help them out. I may do that again, next payday as well.

I never said don't count it I'm just saying it's a material fact that should be mentioned if you're going to write a story crowing about secular liberals being selfish.    Religious people tithe to their church to support their church which is an instituion that they presumably derive some benefit.  By giving to their church they are, in essence,  giving to themselves   Seems kind of disingenous to lump that in as charitible giving, especially so if you're going to try to claim some moral superiority about it.

[tonymctones]

I never said don't count it I'm just saying it's a material fact that should be mentioned if you're going to write a story crowing about secular liberals being selfish.    Religious people tithe to their church to support their church which is an instituion that they presumably derive some benefit.  By giving to their church they are, in essence,  giving to themselves   Seems kind of disingenous to lump that in as charitible giving, especially so if you're going to try to claim some moral superiority about it.

LMAO hahah seems kinda disingenious to think that they only reason those ppl give are b/c "they are giving to themselves" 

those churches never go out and do missionaries right? never go do community outreach right? never provide assistance to members in need right?

tithing to church is really no different than donating to a charity that you volunteer with...

so i guess if youre going to discount those you should logically discount all donations by those who have any affiliation with the charities they donate to...

[Soul Crusher]

Sort of like pedos donating to nambla or the aclu. Lol. 

[Straw Man]

LMAO hahah seems kinda disingenious to think that they only reason those ppl give are b/c "they are giving to themselves"  
those churches never go out and do missionaries right? never go do community outreach right? never provide assistance to members in need right?

tithing to church is really no different than donating to a charity that you volunteer with...

so i guess if youre going to discount those you should logically discount all donations by those who have any affiliation with the charities they donate to...

I didn't say it was disingenious to think that the only reason they are giving it because they are giving to themselves.
I never even said the only reason they are giving is to give to themselves

i said

Seems kind of disingenous to lump that in as charitible giving, especially so if you're going to try to claim some moral superiority about it.

[tonymctones]

By giving to their church they are, in essence,  giving to themselves   Seems kind of disingenous to lump that in as charitible giving, especially so if you're going to try to claim some moral superiority about it.

just plain idiocy

I agree about the moral superiority, I dont think anybody should take that stance

but the bolded parts are just more straw man golden nuggets 

[Straw Man]

just plain idiocy

I agree about the moral superiority, I dont think anybody should take that stance

but the bolded parts are just more straw man golden nuggets 

you're the last person (well maybe second to last) that I would expect to understand anything

the point of Coulter story leaves out a material fact which make her point completely invalid

[tonymctones]

you're the last person (well maybe second to last) that I would expect to understand anything
the point of Coulter story leaves out a material fact which make her point completely invalid

LOL right back at you post office boy 

[Straw Man]

LOL right back at you post office boy 

LOL - let me know when you start refusing to receive or send mail

[tonymctones]

LOL - let me know when you start refusing to receive or send mail

they are doing great, arent they?

you would buy stock if you could, right?

I surely hope youre not in the FA business there straw 

[Straw Man]

they are doing great, arent they?

you would buy stock if you could, right?

I surely hope youre not in the FA business there straw 

I wouldn't buy any stock at random

surely even you can understand that

I've made my position about the USP clear many times but again, I wouldn't expect you to understand nuance or anything beyond simplistc black and white secenarios

[tonymctones]

I wouldn't buy any stock at random

surely even you can understand that

I've made my position about the USP clear many times but again, I wouldn't expect you to understand nuance or anything beyond simplistc black and white secenarios

LMAO says the man who cannot see how the logic he uses to jusitify his positions leads leads to justification of shit he is against...

[Straw Man]

LMAO says the man who cannot see how the logic he uses to jusitify his positions leads leads to justification of shit he is against...

I certainly welcome debate but you should stop trying to delude yourself that you're some kind of logic master

you just paint yourself into a corner every time and then cry like a baby

[tonymctones]

I certainly welcome debate but you should stop trying to delude yourself that you're some kind of logic master

you just paint yourself into a corner every time and then cry like a baby

LMAO i dont fancy myself a logic master straw compared to you, yes i am a logic genius but in reality its just basic logic that im using and youre lacking 

I paint myself into a corner, says the man who claims gay marriage is a civil rights issue but doesnt see how bisexual polygamy is a civil rights issue using that logic...

I paint myself into a corner  ;

youre fuking priceless man, ive said it before and ill say it again

you have a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing  im sorry bro

[Straw Man]

LMAO i dont fancy myself a logic master straw compared to you, yes i am a logic genius but in reality its just basic logic that im using and youre lacking 

I paint myself into a corner, says the man who claims gay marriage is a civil rights issue but doesnt see how bisexual polygamy is a civil rights issue using that logic...

I paint myself into a corner  ;

youre fuking priceless man, ive said it before and ill say it again

you have a degenerative brain disorder that is rapidly progressing  im sorry bro

this is an open forum

everyone can draw their own conclusions

[tonymctones]

this is an open forum

everyone can draw their own conclusions

agreed but logic is universal friend, that is if its not your fuzzy logic 

[Straw Man]

agreed but logic is universal friend, that is if its not your fuzzy logic 

you know there is actually something called fuzzy logic right?

you're the one who is constantly using the word logic

you should just let your arguments speak for themselves

It seems like you'd just rather disagree with me regardless of how absurd your arguments get in order to do so

I'm fine with it.  It's entertaining at times but eventually I get bored when you just start going around in circles chasing your tail

[Soul Crusher]

Bottom line - libs are generous with others cash, not their own. 

[tonymctones]

you know there is actually something called fuzzy logic right?

you're the one who is constantly using the word logic

you should just let your arguments speak for themselves

It seems like you'd just rather disagree with me regardless of how absurd your arguments get in order to do so

I'm fine with it.  It's entertaining at times but eventually I get bored when you just start going around in circles chasing your tail

i enjoy making you look foolish, what can I say 

my arguments do speak for themselves b/c they are based in sound logical reasoning unlike yours 

yours are often based on nothing more than irrational emotion and this is why they do not hold up to any logical reasoning and the reason i am able to make you look idiotic time and time again

[Straw Man]

i enjoy making you look foolish, what can I say 

my arguments do speak for themselves b/c they are based in sound logical reasoning unlike yours 

yours are often based on nothing more than irrational emotion and this is why they do not hold up to any logical reasoning and the reason i am able to make you look idiotic time and time again

I think you must truly enjoy making yourself look foolish more than anything