Those F-ing, Ignorant, Low IQ, Red States, Racist, Intolorant, Moral Lacking BASTARDS - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-11-2004, 10:16 AM   #46
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:29 PM
I'll bet that most of these charitable donations are to church organizations. Most of those donations are to BIG churchs, and like big government they're almost exclusively corrupt.

Ever notice how big and flashing most churches are compared to governmental buildings? Where are they spending the money? On a flashy chapel, or starving people in Africa?

Just some questions I have.

Also, what's the average educational ranking of these states. Does it cost more to live in certain areas? Does that affect disposible income? How about IQ rankings?


Nearly 60 million people voted for Bush, so rather than set myself up as a target when the Marshall Law/Persecution is complete, I'm going to congradulate the Bush regime, and wish them the best of luck in the next four years. Go BUSH! I love you, man!

__________________

__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 10:23 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:29 PM
We have plenty of threads Dano that have pointed out how ignorant they are.....you have not seen them?

And deep, my thread title is a compilation of the wonderful things that have been said in thread titles, or in threads around here lately....please.....I am just syummarizing in one statement.....
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 11:12 AM   #48
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
And deep, my thread title is a compilation of the wonderful things that have been said in thread titles, or in threads around here lately....please.....I am just syummarizing in one statement.....
thanks for parring it all down for one-stop shopping.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 11:39 AM   #49
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky


thanks for parring it all down for one-stop shopping.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 11:59 AM   #50
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano
I'll bet that most of these charitable donations are to church organizations. Most of those donations are to BIG churchs, and like big government they're almost exclusively corrupt.

Ever notice how big and flashing most churches are compared to governmental buildings? Where are they spending the money? On a flashy chapel, or starving people in Africa?
Lovely stereotyping.....


Having visited a number of churches in rural Mississippi, I can say you have no idea of what you are talking about.

But it is a lovely generalization, held by many.....
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 02:15 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
speedracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,573
Local Time: 11:29 PM
While we're stereotyping:

Librarian: You've checked out this Bible every week for the last nine years. Surely it would be easier just to buy one?

Rev. Lovejoy: Perhaps, on a librarian's salary.
__________________
speedracer is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 02:19 PM   #52
Blue Crack Addict
 
joyfulgirl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 16,615
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Well, the following statement:



suggests that giving to religious organizations is not on the same par as giving to other charitable organizations.
And likewise, this thread suggests that the blue states with lower charitable contributions, perhaps because they don't give 10-20% of their income to religious organizations, are less generous in general.
__________________
joyfulgirl is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 02:56 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 12:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Danospano


Ever notice how big and flashing most churches are compared to governmental buildings? Where are they spending the money? On a flashy chapel, or starving people in Africa?
Just my opinion, but I don't really think it's all that wrong to have expensive churches because they draw a wealthier crowd, which tends to donate a lot of money to charities and such. I guess you can argue that, but I'm not sure how.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 03:09 PM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:29 AM
My church building is quite expensive. We had a fire back in 2001 when the cross on top of the old building got struck by lightning, and we decided to rebuild the church. We are the wealthiest parish in the diocese, and other parishes have jokes about our gold faucets and such, which, actually don't exist. The people are involved in various charity activities, and every week there is something in the bulletin about people needing help. People always respond to these messages. That being said we didn't do this specifically to attract wealthy parishioners. In the Catholic Church we have geographical parishes, and if you're in a particular parish's area it is in canon law that you are supposed to be active in that parish. In practice, the Church is more flexible and you can choose to attend another church if you want to, but most of us do not.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 05:02 PM   #55
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by joyfulgirl


And likewise, this thread suggests that the blue states with lower charitable contributions, perhaps because they don't give 10-20% of their income to religious organizations, are less generous in general.
no, it shows that they (blue state ppl) keep more of their dispossable income, as all Americans have their choice of whatever charity they feel a need to give to.

but from you inference,
if u give to your church that wouldn't be the best charity,
and
if u give your time or money to a non religious charity that would be the more appropiate and polictically correct type of 'charity' to give to.. according to some...

for the record..no one in the red states is stopping the people in the blue states in donating to any charity they desire, religious or non religious.




db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 06:16 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Kristie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: back home again in Indiana
Posts: 6,386
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zoocoustic
Why would you want to exclude tithing?

Charitable contributions are charitable contributions, whether you're giving to a church, or any other organization, you're still GIVING your own income of your own free will and choice to something you believe in. Its an act of selflessness and charity.
I'm not saying giving to church isn't charitable, just that I'm interested in the numbers. All those damn sociology classes, I suppose

and nbcrusader, I did not intend to suggest " that giving to religious organizations is not on the same par as giving to other charitable organizations." My interest in this case is academic, based on the southern demographic, in comparison to the other, more urban "blue" states at the bottom of the list.
__________________
Kristie is offline  
Old 11-11-2004, 07:10 PM   #57
Refugee
 
Danospano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 1,415
Local Time: 11:29 PM
k...I've given it some thought and here's my problem with the data:

The entire study is based on averages. Therefore, some factors should be addressed to make the statistics fool-proof.

Example: In the case of Arkansas, where the headquarters for the wealthest family in America (Walmart) is located, the average could be skewed. If the Walton family were to donate let's say 1 billion dollars, and hypothetically, the rest of the state's population of roughly 2.55 million were to donate absolutely nothing, the average donation would be close to $400 per person. Conversely, if a state like Connecticut, which has more dispersed wealthy families, were to each donate $250 per person, but have more generocity throughout the households, they'd be considered less charitable.

I looked at the graph and read the technical details, but all the rankings were based on averages for the entire state. Isn't an average calculated by taking the whole number of donation dollars and dividing it by the entire population? If I am correct, which I might NOT be, this would suggest that the southern/midwest "red" states could have greater gaps in income, thus separating the haves from have-nots, and misrepresenting the population's charitability as a whole.
__________________
Danospano is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 03:49 AM   #58
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LA, California, USA
Posts: 1,349
Local Time: 04:29 AM
What we really need are those nasty statistics called mean (we already have that), medium, and mode.
__________________
blueyedpoet is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 09:53 AM   #59
War Child
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 760
Local Time: 04:29 AM
Ah, the UNITED states...

This Blue vs Red states "culture" war is...what's the word...sad.

But it's creating some funny venting (though the writer assumes all red states are "southern" in culture...apologize if this has already been posted) :

http://www.fuckthesouth.com/
__________________
Judah is offline  
Old 11-18-2004, 01:30 PM   #60
Babyface
 
Sabretooth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Buffalo, NY USA
Posts: 7
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Maybe the states at the bottom prefer to rob from the rich and give to the poor?
Hardly. Being from NY (one of, if not the highest, taxed states in the union), I've been shelling out money for nothing. I only make what's considered borderline HighLower/LowMiddle Class, and the amount of money I pay in state taxes is OUTrageous. And there is talk of raising state taxes again this year...

NY's theory: "rob for the poor to give to the poorer" is more like it, as most higher wage families do not pay the same percentages that I do, some barely blink an eye at them. I'm paying roughly 20% while higher brackets are paying 4-5%.

It's the Democrats bright idea to encourage government dependancy. While I'm trying to bust my a$$ to make a living, I'm giving away my money to some non-working, no-skill, non-motivated, beer-sucking loser to punch out a kid every couple years. And even if those on welfare wanted to work, why would they? The State penalizes your income to do so.

I'm disappointed that Kerry won this state. However, I'm glad some people are using their brains instead of thier affiliation to vote. My state is 77% registered Democrat and Kerry only won 55-45%.

-DaveC

-------------------------------------
"...we don't know what it is,
so it must be ours...:
-Bono
-------------------------------------
__________________

__________________
Sabretooth is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com