The Supremes

[sidis 9,832]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is not true. Practicing Christian pro-life types adopt a lot more kids than lefties.

And we certainly no which side is more generous when it comes to reaching into their own pockets to support charities.

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable than non-religious when other factors such as income are normalized.  it simply isn't true.  and when you count tithing money to joel osteen to pay for his multi-million dollar residential compounds, it undermines the meaningfulness of your contention.  a few things worth reviewing if you ever care to get anywhere near the truth...

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/altruism-philanthropy-religious-secular-approaches

https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HWGN-Report_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/08/18/earthly-concerns

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january16/googlesr-011608.html

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/who-gives-most-to-charity/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

[hobbes2702 13,150]

1 hour ago, Johnny Sack said:

That is not true. Practicing Christian pro-life types adopt a lot more kids than lefties.

And we certainly no which side is more generous when it comes to reaching into their own pockets to support charities.

The world would be better off without people who think like you do.

Louisiana going after IVF. So literally my partner would not have been able to have her son because of this shit. Totes cool 

[HenryJames 66,275]

 

[Nivek 17,035]

48 minutes ago, South Austin said:

And medical malpractice insurance premiums are astronomical as it is.  (Side note:  Remember in the late 90s/early 00s when the lobbyists said tort reform would lower malpractice insurance premiums?  They were full of shit; it never did.)  Most physicians aren't going to give their insurer a reason to further jack them up by exposing them to a civil suit/bounty hunter claim, criminal prosecution, or disciplinary action by their state licensing agency.

Only morons believed that it would work.  They lied about the facts of the McDonald's case and used that to sway them.   One family member who I recall telling me that they have hardly any doctors any more and huge wait lists because of all the liability crap, recently told me how they are having to wait 1 month to see their doc while they have an open wound.  Tort reform works! Otherwise he would have had to wait 3 months like in Canada right?  Right?  rigggghhhtt.

[Nivek 17,035]

delete

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Nivek

[Serak The Preparer 3,436]

22 minutes ago, sidis said:

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable than non-religious when other factors such as income are normalized.  it simply isn't true.  and when you count tithing money to joel osteen to pay for his multi-million dollar residential compounds, it undermines the meaningfulness of your contention.  a few things worth reviewing if you ever care to get anywhere near the truth...

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/altruism-philanthropy-religious-secular-approaches

https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HWGN-Report_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/08/18/earthly-concerns

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january16/googlesr-011608.html

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/who-gives-most-to-charity/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

@Johnny Sack being concerned with things like "truth" or "accuracy":

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

34 minutes ago, sidis said:

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable than non-religious when other factors such as income are normalized.  it simply isn't true.  and when you count tithing money to joel osteen to pay for his multi-million dollar residential compounds, it undermines the meaningfulness of your contention.  a few things worth reviewing if you ever care to get anywhere near the truth...

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/altruism-philanthropy-religious-secular-approaches

https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HWGN-Report_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/08/18/earthly-concerns

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january16/googlesr-011608.html

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/who-gives-most-to-charity/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

There is no need for all those excuses.  Democrats are stingy when it comes to charity.  Cherry pick all you want.  As to Osteen, his church is filled with poor minorities.  They aren't some big GOP hub.  He grifts through book sales, not charitable receipts.

Libs always want to discount giving to churches.  It's not like they do any good in the community or build hospitals and schools.  They don't open their facilities for use by other nonprofits.

 

 

 

Taken from your links:

These “giving ratios” reveal a consistent pattern. Measured by how much they share out of what they have available, the most generous Americans are not generally those in high-income, urban, liberal states like California or Massachusetts. Rather, people living in states that are more rural, conservative, religious, and moderate in income are our most generous givers.

 

Religious practice is the behavioral variable most consistently associated with generous giving. Charitable effort correlates strongly with the frequency with which a person attends religious services. Evangelical Protestants and Mormons in particular are strong givers. Compared to Protestant affiliation, both Catholic affiliation and Jewish affiliation reduce the scope of average giving, when other influences are held constant.

Finer-grain numbers from the PSID show that the faithful don’t just give to religious causes; they are also much more likely to give to secular causes than the non-religious. Among Americans who report that they “never” attend religious services, just less than half give any money at all to secular causes. People who attend services 27-52 times per year, though, give money to secular charities in two thirds of all cases. (See page 1138.)

 

 

[David Dennison 19,117]

Any study that uses IRS data to determine how much money people give to charity is suspect.

Edited May 6, 2022 by David Dennison

[Captainant 27,970]

redhats and shitty infographics that lack axis labels, explanation of dataset, or data from the last decade - name a more iconic duo.

Johnny is really working himself into a pretzel here and spreading to a bunch of different issues to avoid talking about how much he wants women to resume their traditional role of chattel 

[sidis 9,832]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

There is no need for all those excuses.  Democrats are stingy when it comes to charity.  Cherry pick all you want.  As to Osteen, his church is filled with poor minorities.  They aren't some big GOP hub.  He grifts through book sales, not charitable receipts.

Libs always want to discount giving to churches.  It's not like they do any good in the community or build hospitals and schools.  They don't open their facilities for use by other nonprofits.

 

 

 

Taken from your links:

These “giving ratios” reveal a consistent pattern. Measured by how much they share out of what they have available, the most generous Americans are not generally those in high-income, urban, liberal states like California or Massachusetts. Rather, people living in states that are more rural, conservative, religious, and moderate in income are our most generous givers.

 

Religious practice is the behavioral variable most consistently associated with generous giving. Charitable effort correlates strongly with the frequency with which a person attends religious services. Evangelical Protestants and Mormons in particular are strong givers. Compared to Protestant affiliation, both Catholic affiliation and Jewish affiliation reduce the scope of average giving, when other influences are held constant.

Finer-grain numbers from the PSID show that the faithful don’t just give to religious causes; they are also much more likely to give to secular causes than the non-religious. Among Americans who report that they “never” attend religious services, just less than half give any money at all to secular causes. People who attend services 27-52 times per year, though, give money to secular charities in two thirds of all cases. (See page 1138.)

 

 

 

The fact that you can't see the issue with your own charts that the state of utah is far and away the highest "charitable" giving state tells me you are incapable of thinking about this on more than a primary basis.  the same for cherrypicking those quotes and then ignoring the rest of the rest of the articles.  not all "charity" is created equal.  see the third and fourth links in my post.  requirements of tithing to the mormon church that are not utilized for charity but instead, church infrastructure and political activities is not the same as contributing to actual charitable organizations.

of course that isn't to say that religious organizations can't be phenomenal tools for good.  the second largest contributions in my charitable giving every year is to mobile loaves and fishes despite not being a christian.  those people are doing absolutely phenomenal work and deserve whatever support can be given.  unfortunately, the osteens, liberty universitys, lds empire, etc... who dominate the actual money that flows amongst "religious giving" are not up to mobile loaves and fishes' standards...or even the local catholic church friday fish fries that occur to feed the homeless.  unfortunately, the catholic church also significantly suffers from this (see the third link in my post).

that said, unfortunately, the mobile loaves and fishes of the world are more the outliers these days in terms of the actual capital flows.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,242]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You need to stop calling them women, you transphobic piece of crap.  Men can get pregnant too.

You are a piece of shit misogynist.  Do us all a fucking favor and take a long walk off a short pier. 

[Nivek 17,035]

Johnny Sack should venmo me $500,000 to prove he is charitable.  

Never included in his calculus is that my hobbies and clubs are taxed.  Thus I have less to give.  

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

4 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

You are a piece of shit misogynist.  Do us all a fucking favor and take a long walk off a short pier. 

You need some therapy.

[Captainant 27,970]

12 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You need to stop calling them women, you transphobic piece of crap.  Men can get pregnant too.

You are a sad, hateful man and a poor example of what Christians allege to strive for

[Tom 2,960]

Do all these charts take into an account when I round up at the register at Petco and Which Which?

[hobbes2702 13,150]

2 minutes ago, Tom said:

Do all these charts take into an account when I round up at the register at Petco and Which Which?

The amount of money Petco and PetSmart get outta me at the register is probably hundreds of thousands at this point.

Edited May 6, 2022 by hobbes2702

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

You are a sad, hateful man and a poor example of what Christians allege to strive for

Nothing I said is hateful.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

15 minutes ago, sidis said:

 

The fact that you can't see the issue with your own charts that the state of utah is far and away the highest "charitable" giving state tells me you are incapable of thinking about this on more than a primary basis.  the same for cherrypicking those quotes and then ignoring the rest of the rest of the articles.  not all "charity" is created equal.  see the third and fourth links in my post.  requirements of tithing to the mormon church that are not utilized for charity but instead, church infrastructure and political activities is not the same as contributing to actual charitable organizations.

of course that isn't to say that religious organizations can't be phenomenal tools for good.  the second largest contributions in my charitable giving every year is to mobile loaves and fishes despite not being a christian.  those people are doing absolutely phenomenal work and deserve whatever support can be given.  unfortunately, the osteens, liberty universitys, lds empire, etc... who dominate the actual money that flows amongst "religious giving" are not up to mobile loaves and fishes' standards...or even the local catholic church friday fish fries that occur to feed the homeless.  unfortunately, the catholic church also significantly suffers from this (see the third link in my post).

that said, unfortunately, the mobile loaves and fishes of the world are more the outliers these days in terms of the actual capital flows.

I understand the point you are trying to make.  You are trying to cherry pick which 501c3's have merit based on your values. There are plenty of secular liberal 501c3s out there that I do not care for based on my values.  I am not discounting donations to them.

[sidis 9,832]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

I understand the point you are trying to make.  You are trying to cherry pick which 501c3's have merit based on your values. There are plenty of secular liberal 501c3s out there that I do not care for based on my values.  I am not discounting donations to them.

as usual...you nailed it.  

 

[Captainant 27,970]

Wealthy conservatives LOVE charities, they're the tax-free piggybank for whatever your pet cause is. Just file some paperwork and presto-change-o, you're doing a charity!

Who knew that political donations could be counted as charity, as long as they've filed the right paperwork?? They could even disguise their fraud and theft as charity!

[wildcat09 29,453]

The Mormon Church sure is doing a whole lot of good with all that tithing.

[sidis 9,832]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

The Mormon Church sure is doing a whole lot of good with all that tithing.

i just cannot possibly see how that could have anything to do with his point regarding the clear picture that utah is the most "charitable" state in the nation!  you just don't like mormons you anti-dentite bastard.

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

6 minutes ago, sidis said:

as usual...you nailed it.  

 

You think that high comp for executives of nonprofits is unique to religious nonprofits?  You think other nonprofits don't have private jets?  

The vast, vast majority of churches are no mega churches.  Those are outliers.

[Goredho 17,510]

1 hour ago, sidis said:

in one of the many instances in which i debunked your oversimplified, unsupported bullshit and you simply never responded, i addressed your absolutist contention that religious are more charitable than non-religious when other factors such as income are normalized.  it simply isn't true.  and when you count tithing money to joel osteen to pay for his multi-million dollar residential compounds, it undermines the meaningfulness of your contention.  a few things worth reviewing if you ever care to get anywhere near the truth...

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/working-papers/altruism-philanthropy-religious-secular-approaches

https://pacscenter.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/HWGN-Report_FINAL_DIGITAL.pdf

https://www.economist.com/briefing/2012/08/18/earthly-concerns

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/january16/googlesr-011608.html

https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/resource/who-gives-most-to-charity/

https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Mormon Church sure is doing a whole lot of good with all that tithing.

They seem to

https://www.ksl.com/article/46721610/latter-day-saint-charities-provided-about-100m-in-assistance-in-2019-reports-show

 

Quote

But the funds used by Latter-day Saint Charities are only a small part of the church’s combined annual humanitarian and welfare aid expenditures, which approach $1 billion a year, the news release says.

Not to mention their schools and churches.

[Francisco 2.0 32,432]

11 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Wealthy conservatives LOVE charities, they're the tax-free piggybank for whatever your pet cause is. Just file some paperwork and presto-change-o, you're doing a charity!

Who knew that political donations could be counted as charity, as long as they've filed the right paperwork?? They could even disguise their fraud and theft as charity!

 

 

 

 

[tx 3 putt 77,920]

Birthright citizenship might get tossed out before gay marriage. You can't have illegal fetuses with constitutional rights 

[Captainant 27,970]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

Birthright citizenship might get tossed out before gay marriage. You can't have illegal fetuses with constitutional rights 

Oh damn didn't think about that angle - if "life starts at conception" does that mean that if you conceived in the US the child is a citizen? Since birth no longer is a differentiator to republicans

[Nivek 17,035]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

You think that high comp for executives of nonprofits is unique to religious nonprofits?  You think other nonprofits don't have private jets?  

The vast, vast majority of churches are no mega churches.  Those are outliers.

goal posts are a moving.....

[tx 3 putt 77,920]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh damn didn't think about that angle - if "life starts at conception" does that mean that if you conceived in the US the child is a citizen? Since birth no longer is a differentiator to republicans

 

im sure the surly GQP/maga crowd has a strong opinion on this 

[Pancho 45,428]

 

[Pig Bellmont 8,746]

I’m amazed at how many people engage with Sack who has been trolling since Monday 

[Captainant 27,970]

8 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Oh damn didn't think about that angle - if "life starts at conception" does that mean that if you conceived in the US the child is a citizen? Since birth no longer is a differentiator to republicans

So I'm bored and it's a Friday without meetings so I googled for what the current legal definition of a "natural born citizen" is and wouldn't you know it, there's never been a specific ruling on its meaning. There's some US codes that specify "after birth", but the only court case out there on the issue is from 1898, US vs Wong Kim Ark, which applied the 14A's naturalization clause to find that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

AKA birthright citizenship.

Which wouldn't ya know it, is also a redhat shithead shibboleth. And since it happened after the civil war, something something no historic precedent and can be overturned of course.

[Chuckie Finster 22,759]

21 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m amazed at how many people engage with Sack who has been trolling since Monday  conception

 

[tx 3 putt 77,920]

19 minutes ago, Captainant said:

So I'm bored and it's a Friday without meetings so I googled for what the current legal definition of a "natural born citizen" is and wouldn't you know it, there's never been a specific ruling on its meaning. There's some US codes that specify "after birth", but the only court case out there on the issue is from 1898, US vs Wong Kim Ark, which applied the 14A's naturalization clause to find that anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship.

AKA birthright citizenship.

Which wouldn't ya know it, is also a redhat shithead shibboleth. And since it happened after the civil war, something something no historic precedent and can be overturned of course.

 

lousiana is considering give a fetus, at fertilization, full constitutional rights 

[TexEx15 17,812]

So with the way things are headed will you be able to claim a fertilized egg as a dependent on your taxes? Can I call CPS when I see a pregnant woman drinking alcohol or smoking?

[South Austin 52,686]

18 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

lousiana is considering give a fetus, at fertilization, full constitutional rights 

Great.  Now we're going to have a bunch of fetuses carrying AR-15's.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,917]

2 hours ago, Homercles said:

There’s now a RatJuul too 

if it's him that's the perfect name for him. fucking douche

[Bateshorn 9,944]

46 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

I’m amazed at how many people engage with Sack who has been trolling since Monday 

 

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,242]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

 

Sack is an easy target to take ire out on.  

[Horn Dog 10,025]

18 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

So with the way things are headed will you be able to claim a fertilized egg as a dependent on your taxes? Can I call CPS when I see a pregnant woman drinking alcohol or smoking?

Since abortion is now "homicide" in LA,  I would bet that you could shoot a pregnant woman who you believe is contemplating abortion and claim some form of "fetal self defense by proxy",  stir up the right wing media machine, and probably be attending a Mara-Largo party as a right wing celebrity by this time next year.  

[tx 3 putt 77,920]

25 minutes ago, TexEx15 said:

So with the way things are headed will you be able to claim a fertilized egg as a dependent on your taxes? Can I call CPS when I see a pregnant woman drinking alcohol or smoking?

you call the federal fetus task force !

[Captainant 27,970]

24 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Since abortion is now "homicide" in LA,  I would bet that you could shoot a pregnant woman who you believe is contemplating abortion and claim some form of "fetal self defense by proxy",  stir up the right wing media machine, and probably be attending a Mara-Largo party as a right wing celebrity by this time next year.  

It's a fantastic mechanism to disenfranchise women of their right to vote if they dare to exercise bodily autonomy. If you commit homicide that's a felony offense. Felons generally lose the right to vote.

[tx 3 putt 77,920]

Get an out of state abortion = lose your right to vote. It’s coming. There’s a reason they want abortion to be a felony, because only dems get abortions !!!

and anyone associated with that abortion, will also lose all voting rights. We can’t have those people electing politicians 

Edited May 6, 2022 by tx 3 putt

[jimmyjazz 46,470]

That brings up a good question:  what percentage of those women who get abortions leans (R) and what percentage leans (D)?

It might not be what the Republicans think.

[Captainant 27,970]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That brings up a good question:  what percentage of those women who get abortions leans (R) and what percentage leans (D)?

It might not be what the Republicans think.

lol you think republicans want their wimminz to think and vote for themselves

[Johnny Sack 8,397]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That brings up a good question:  what percentage of those women who get abortions leans (R) and what percentage leans (D)?

It might not be what the Republicans think.

There are probably stats out there.  I know there are on race and income and abortion rates.  

[Anastasis 23,498]

6 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Republicans hate women because the bible hates women. 

If you follow a cult that was started 2000 years ago. It will probably be anti-women

 

This is a very stupid post. Congrats.

 

 

[Nivek 17,035]

2 hours ago, Anastasis said:

 

This is a very stupid post. Congrats.

 

 

But is it?  Both Sides!

[Anastasis 23,498]

42 minutes ago, Nivek said:

But is it?  Both Sides!

yes. I’ll walk you through if you need. Wouldn’t be the first time I had to do so for you.