Conservatives more...

[JakeHero]

....generous than liberals apparently. According to this http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy1 11406.html conservative give more of their income and more overall to charities than liberals. Can't say this surprises me.

[TheMason]

At 12/1/06 02:26 PM, BanditByte wrote: ....generous than liberals apparently. According to this http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/brieaddy1 11406.html conservative give more of their income and more overall to charities than liberals. Can't say this surprises me.

Of course, on the whole we see social 'welfare' issues as more of a local issue. Libs would rather tax people and have the government with all of its effeciency pass out the alms. Called forced goodwil!

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/1/06 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:26 PM, BanditByte wrote:

Libs would rather tax people and have the government with all of its effeciency pass out the alms. Called forced goodwil!

If your being sarcastic I applaud your good humor.

[Archon-John]

This is because the liberals want to keep people poor. It's in their own best interests.

Liberals fight for the 'little guy'. The Bob Cratchett of the modern USA. They propose free money that they get from the successful people and free food and health care and what not. (Basically, to turn this country into Canada... and nobody wants that. Sorry Canadians, but I couldn't resist. Plus your economy is crap)

Anyways, my point is that if the Democrats fix everything they say they will, then people won't re-elect them because they've already done everything. There won't be a need for their services, if you will, and the used-to-be-poor-people will elect someone who will serve the needs of the I'm-not-poor-people.

Democrats stay in office by making people poor. Maybe that's why Minnesota's Twin Cities only started improving the quality of life for people when they elected republicans...

Just a thought...

[MoralLibertarian]

I've known this for a while, and I think that this brings up an important discussion about the psyche of a liberal democrat.

The liberal democrat looks inward, sees a nasty, awful person, and assumes that society is like him. He then advocates a slew of social programs designed to forcibly take the richest American's money so he doesn't have to pay for charity. As if this isn't bad enough, the majority of rich liberals practice all sorts of tax-sheltering so they don't even have to pay for the very programs they advocate! Meanwhile, the religious and the church-goers are actually the ones going out of their way to serve the community and donate.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/1/06 03:40 PM, Grammer wrote: I heard about this study on Bill O` Reilly, but it's not a good excuse to bash liberals.

There's no such thing as a bad excuse to bash liberals. Liberals themselves are the perfect excuse for bashing.

[Begoner]

Before I believe that, I would like to see his methodology. There are so many variables to control for that it's nearly impossible to correctly express such a complex relationship. Anyway, is their political affiliation gauged by what they claim it is? That presents some problems, since the terms are extremely subjective.

[Begoner]

(Basically, to turn this country into Canada...

Actually, Canada enjoys a higher quality of life than the US. I would be overjoyed if this country was turned into another Canada, and so would many people who aren't jealous of more successful countries.

[TheMason]

At 12/1/06 02:36 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:26 PM, BanditByte wrote:

Libs would rather tax people and have the government with all of its effeciency pass out the alms. Called forced goodwil!

If your being sarcastic I applaud your good humor.

Nope, its actually what I think. The liberals ideology is one of big government taking care of the people rather than people taking care of people...

[JakeHero]

At 12/1/06 03:50 PM, Begoner wrote:

(Basically, to turn this country into Canada...

Actually, Canada enjoys a higher quality of life than the US.

That's because of minorities here who live in utter poverty. I'm pretty sure they're more of them here than in Canada.

And yes, liberals are hypocrites who preach helping the poor but sparsely do it themselves.

[Draconias]

At 12/1/06 04:21 PM, BanditByte wrote:

At 12/1/06 03:50 PM, Begoner wrote:

(Basically, to turn this country into Canada...

Actually, Canada enjoys a higher quality of life than the US.

That's because of minorities here who live in utter poverty. I'm pretty sure they're more of them here than in Canada.

And yes, liberals are hypocrites who preach helping the poor but sparsely do it themselves.

Canada doesn't have a Mexican border. 10 million illegal immigrants have joined the nation in the past two decades, all in the lowest economic categories.

[JakeHero]

At 12/1/06 04:30 PM, Draconias wrote: Canada doesn't have a Mexican border. 10 million illegal immigrants have joined the nation in the past two decades, all in the lowest economic categories.

Exactly. The reason the USA isn't at top for life standards is due to this reason. We have millions of illegals coming in here who are impoverished. I guarantee if any of these other mixed-economies had to deal with this problem they'd be even lower than the US.

[JakeHero]

Bizump, yall. I'm not letting this thread descend into oblivion since we made a major break-through.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/1/06 03:50 PM, Begoner wrote:

(Basically, to turn this country into Canada...

Actually, Canada enjoys a higher quality of life than the US.

Not really. "Quality of life" is a very subjective term because its up to personal interpretation. People always use the myth "Canada's healthcare is better" but I find that funny because every year thousands of Canadians come down to the US to get QUALITY healthcare. It may be 'free healthcare' up there, but its pretty much shit compared to US healthcare. Besides, its not really 'free' because most Canadians pay over 50% of their income on taxes and most of this funds their shitty 'one size fits all' universal healthcare.

I would be overjoyed if this country was turned into another Canada, and so would many people who aren't jealous of more successful countries.

Why don't you move to Canada then? Any American who honestly claims that they think Canada's policies are better is obviously delusional. Thats why so many CANADIANS move to THE US, and not vice versa.

And Canada is not a more successful country. That is a fucking joke.

- Canada's economic growth rate is lower
- Their GDP (income) per capita is much lower than it is in the US
- Their unemployment is much higher
- Their interest rates are through the roof
- Most of Canada's economy revolves around American business in the first place.

And their country is dependent on the US politically, economically, and militarily, hell even culturally and socially. Their country is just basically a parasite on the ass of an elephant (the US)

Canada a more successful country? Ha ha ha, you might want to pursue a career in comedy.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 12/1/06 04:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:36 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:30 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 12/1/06 02:26 PM, BanditByte wrote:

Nope, its actually what I think. The liberals ideology is one of big government taking care of the people rather than people taking care of people...

I was meaning more with government effeciency.

Since we have none.

[Begoner]

At 12/1/06 11:05 PM, Grammer wrote: Isn't it weird how liberals won't believe this but they will believe the 650k death figure in Iraq?

No, it's not weird at all. The study in Iraq was conducted by teams of doctors whose sole purpose was to randomly poll households, ask how many people had died and ask for a death certificate. The information was then compiled and conclusions were drawn. It was completely scientific and there was very little possibility for error. The "altruism" study, however, was much less scientific and the methodology wasn't published in that article. Before a conclusion can be drawn, the methodology needs to be examined. The methodology used in Iraq was air-tight, was used in several other wars prior to Iraq and found reliable. There is no contest between the two, really. It isn't weird how people point out liberal contradictions when there are none, though?

[Memorize]

At 12/1/06 11:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

No, it's not weird at all. The study in Iraq was conducted by teams of doctors whose sole purpose was to randomly poll households,

Yeah, because these few people polled hundreds of thousands of households to make a conclusion.

[Begoner]

Yeah, because these few people polled hundreds of thousands of households to make a conclusion.

No, that is not necessary, as anyone who has taken even an elementary statistics course will know. Please don't speak out of ignorance.

[Begoner]

I wouldn't be surprised if they lied

I would be extremely suprised, because 90% of them were able to present valid death certificates. Did you read anything about the study at all or do you think that if a body isn't dumped in the morgue with a gunshot wound to the head that doesn't count as a war-related casualty?

[Begoner]

I forgot to say, you're 15. You're not in College. You wouldn't know.

Actually, I have taken an AP statistics course in high school. Nonetheless, there are plenty of easy-to-use internet interfaces which you can use to calculate stuff like that for you. Here's a simple one.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/moe.html

[Begoner]

the rate at which someone donates to charity would be pretty easy, I assume

Somebody who earns $1000000 dollars a year would be able to donate much more to charity than someone who works on minimum wage. Of course, the author claimed to have factored income out of the equation, but I'd need to see his methodology to determine whether his study was valid or not, as well as all of his supposed data tables. A study is worthless if the scientist does not publish all his data for review. The Iraq study, however, was scientifically valid and accepted because the methodology was well-documented to be an accurate gauge of the death toll. There is no double standard here. I will give the study credence if you can give me a link as to what calculations he performed to arrive at his conclusion. Faling that, however, it would be unreasonable to expect anybody to take a single person at his word.

[Memorize]

At 12/1/06 11:40 PM, Begoner wrote:

I would be extremely suprised, because 90% of them were able to present valid death certificates.

Did you read the above link? Did you read how multiple people can see the same person die? And... where's the source for this one? And how much was the 90%?

[Begoner]

Did you read how multiple people can see the same person die?

Multiple people can't have the same death certificate, now can they? This was well established and scientifically accepted; get over it. Most of us know that the war in Iraq isn't all sunshine and puppies, and I'm sure the scientific community didn't miss your genial objections to the study.

[Jose]

At 12/1/06 03:44 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 12/1/06 03:40 PM, Grammer wrote: I heard about this study on Bill O` Reilly, but it's not a good excuse to bash liberals.

There's no such thing as a bad excuse to bash liberals. Liberals themselves are the perfect excuse for bashing.

Coming from a classic liberal, that is hilarious.

[Altarus]

At 12/1/06 11:40 PM, Begoner wrote: I would be extremely suprised, because 90% of them were able to present valid death certificates. Did you read anything about the study at all or do you think that if a body isn't dumped in the morgue with a gunshot wound to the head that doesn't count as a war-related casualty?

If 90% of them presented death certificates, why is the official count so much lower? After all, if they have a death certificate, then the Iraqi government must know about the death. Thus, if the war is to really blame for the death, then the death should be counted in the official count.

[Altarus]

At 12/1/06 11:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

The methodology used in Iraq was air-tight

No it wasn't

[Altarus]

At 12/2/06 12:24 AM, Begoner wrote:

Did you read how multiple people can see the same person die?

Multiple people can't have the same death certificate, now can they? This was well established and scientifically accepted; get over it. Most of us know that the war in Iraq isn't all sunshine and puppies, and I'm sure the scientific community didn't miss your genial objections to the study.

I have heard a lot of scientists condemn the study, like top statisticians from Berkeley and other colleges... I want a link that proves this claim of acceptance in the scientific community.

[lapis]

At 12/2/06 04:00 AM, Altarus wrote: No it wasn't

Wyrlum, the guy who wrote that article can't even fucking count. When you have X deaths and you find three reasons that would lower the death toll by 20%, 30% and 30% respectively, then the resulting number isn't (100% - 20% - 30% - 30%) * X, but (100% - 20%) * (100% - 30%) * (100% - 30%) * X. Let's consider the following made-up scenario: I find 2,000 excess deaths in Baghdad and I extrapolate this to the entire country. Someone criticises my decision to extrapolate without corrections by saying that the rest of the country isn't as violent as Baghdad so the number should be 80% lower - another critic says that even in Baghdad I oversampled the violent areas which would also lead to a 50% reduction. According to your source's counting methods I'd reach the conclusion that less people died annually after the invasion than before because (100%-80%-50%) equals -30%, a conclusion following from a discovery of excess deaths.

You're trying to discredit a statistical study by quoting a guy who possesses the mathematical prowess of a random fourth grader. Reading over what I just wrote, I realise that I'm only pushing this thread further off topic so I'll wrap up by stating that I'm not really surprised because right-wingers believe that charity is an individual responsibility while left-wingers believe it's a responsibility of the state, as I'm sure others have said before me. Both sides stay true to their principles: right-wingers by giving more and left-wingers by trying to get the government to give more.

[TheMason]

At 12/1/06 11:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 12/1/06 11:05 PM, Grammer wrote:

No, it's not weird at all. The study in Iraq was conducted by teams of doctors whose sole purpose was to randomly poll households, ask how many people had died and ask for a death certificate. The information was then compiled and conclusions were drawn. It was completely scientific and there was very little possibility for error.

Just because they were doctors does not mean that they know how to conduct this sort of research. Studies like this take on more of a social science flavor, of which MDs are often in contempt of, so there is already bias there.

Furthermore, there is always possibility for error. Something scientists struggle with, but us in the social sciences live with everytime we try to understand something.

Their findings were inconclusive and had a rather wide range from about 300,000 to 950,000. The result they acheived does leave some question in my mind about their methodology. Also, you have to remember that this is total violent deaths since the invasion. What do they include as a violent death? Deaths caused by the US military less than 40,000.

In short that study does not say much. I'm not discounting it based on my political views or ideology; but from an academic perspective.

[MoralLibertarian]

At 12/1/06 11:11 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 12/1/06 11:05 PM, Grammer wrote: Isn't it weird how liberals won't believe this but they will believe the 650k death figure in Iraq?

The "altruism" study, however, was much less scientific and the methodology wasn't published in that article. Before a conclusion can be drawn, the methodology needs to be examined.

So I guess that means you're going to go out and buy the book so you can understand his methodology, right? LOL.

The methodology used in Iraq was air-tight, was used in several other wars prior to Iraq and found reliable.

No it wasn't, no it wasn't, and no it wasn't. Stop lying to yourself. Going to certain households in certain areas and asking people how many people have died is not "reliable."