John Stossel is my second favorite Libertarian (after Aught Six).
Quote:
To test what types of people give more, "20/20" went to two very different parts of the country, with contrasting populations: Sioux Falls, S.D. and San Francisco, Calif. The Salvation Army set up buckets at the busiest locations in each city "” Macy's in San Francisco and Wal-Mart in Sioux Falls. Which bucket collected more money?
Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
Location: land of the Lilliputians, In the state of insanity
Posts: 24,185
RE: Will this cause some debate?
I saw that and found it interesting. They said liberals do not donate as much because they feel it is the Job of the Government. In other words, its your responsability to pay the Government so it can distribute your money to charity. I kinda like to pick who and what orgainzation I donate too.
__________________
kaafir mushrik
Unintended consequences and God have one thing in common: Liberals don’t believe in either of them.
The Stossel thing proves absolutely nothing. This is in no way a scientific study, and I can see the following problems with it:
1) There is no way to determine if the same number of people walked by each bucket.
2) There is no way to determine the income levels of each person who did walked by, so it is difficult to tell how much each person has to give.
3) Has it occured to the 20/20 crew that perhaps this isn't the best way to measure how much people are actually giving to charity? For example, maybe I'm the kind of person who doesn't have that much extra to give, so I have to be careful and measured about where and when I give, which means I probably make my donations to specific places rather than to random bell ringers on the street. Verus maybe the people throwing an extra buck into the SA bucket each time they pass are only donating that to charity and the sum total of their generosity for the year is around $20.
You can't judge a guy wearing a $1000 suit who walks by a Salvation Army bucket without donating because for all you know he judged threw $10,000 another charity the night before.
4) Most importantly, it comes from 20/20 and should under no circumstances be taken seriously.
I'm not saying this proves liberals give more - just that this particular show is worthless in terms of proving it one way or another.
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
The Stossel thing proves absolutely nothing. This is in no way a scientific study, and I can see the following problems with it:
1) There is no way to determine if the same number of people walked by each bucket.
2) There is no way to determine the income levels of each person who did walked by, so it is difficult to tell how much each person has to give.
3) Has it occured to the 20/20 crew that perhaps this isn't the best way to measure how much people are actually giving to charity? For example, maybe I'm the kind of person who doesn't have that much extra to give, so I have to be careful and measured about where and when I give, which means I probably make my donations to specific places rather than to random bell ringers on the street. Verus maybe the people throwing an extra buck into the SA bucket each time they pass are only donating that to charity and the sum total of their generosity for the year is around $20.
You can't judge a guy wearing a $1000 suit who walks by a Salvation Army bucket without donating because for all you know he judged threw $10,000 another charity the night before.
4) Most importantly, it comes from 20/20 and should under no circumstances be taken seriously.
I'm not saying this proves liberals give more - just that this particular show is worthless in terms of proving it one way or another.
I am sitting here, laughing my head off. I figured you would be all over this like a hobo on a ham sandwich. So predictable. You guys use the net and these "independent webpages" to try to prove debate. All the time questioning anything remotely good about religion or even conservatives. Holy cow, you show something like this, and watch em jump up and down.
Yea, sure, it was those liberals from New England that helped house all those poor people in New Orleans. NOT, if it wasn't for the Churches down there, FEMA admited they would have been in bigger trouble than they were in.
I mean, according to this "news" article, if I see you walk by any charity without giving, it proves that you are not as generous as someone who drops in a dollar. Even though I have no idea where, when or how much you give to charities?
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
I am sitting here, laughing my head off. I figured you would be all over this like a hobo on a ham sandwich. So predictable. You guys use the net and these "independent webpages" to try to prove debate. All the time questioning anything remotely good about religion or even conservatives. Holy cow, you show something like this, and watch em jump up and down.
BTW, which "independent webpages" do I use that you find unreliable? When I provide a link, I like to use a link that is from an established, known source such as CNN or a link to a peer reviewed study. You won't find many (if any) posts of mine with a link to Dave's Libertarian Webpage where nobody on this board knows anything about Dave or his so-called facts. There is a large gap between an established news service page or a university study and some guy who writes a random blog.
Stossel and 20/20 I happen to think are worthless because they decide the outcome of their story prior to investigating the story, which doesn't make for very good journalism. But that is my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but that was only one of four of my points that show why this particular article shouldn't be taken seriously. What about the other three?
__________________
This will probably go a lot quicker if you just recognize that you are wrong and I am right.
Apparently this is causing some debate. SB does have a point that this is not a scientific nor accurate means of determining the sum total of peoples' charitable donations.
__________________
Jesus Christ--The reason for the season!
If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a veteran.
If you're certain you know everything, there's little opportunity to learn anything.
I am sitting here, laughing my head off. I figured you would be all over this like a hobo on a ham sandwich. So predictable. You guys use the net and these "independent webpages" to try to prove debate. All the time questioning anything remotely good about religion or even conservatives. Holy cow, you show something like this, and watch em jump up and down.
BTW, which "independent webpages" do I use that you find unreliable? When I provide a link, I like to use a link that is from an established, known source such as CNN or a link to a peer reviewed study. You won't find many (if any) posts of mine with a link to Dave's Libertarian Webpage where nobody on this board knows anything about Dave or his so-called facts. There is a large gap between an established news service page or a university study and some guy who writes a random blog.
Stossel and 20/20 I happen to think are worthless because they decide the outcome of their story prior to investigating the story, which doesn't make for very good journalism. But that is my opinion. If you disagree, fine, but that was only one of four of my points that show why this particular article shouldn't be taken seriously. What about the other three?
Oh my, you picked up a new phrase "peer reviewed", too bad you really don't know what that means.
Apparently this is causing some debate. SB does have a point that this is not a scientific nor accurate means of determining the sum total of peoples' charitable donations.
No, it just takes common sense to understand it. You either got it, or you don't. You do not need a panel of judges or experts to tell you that.
Will this cause some debate?
SB does have a point that this is not a scientific nor accurate means of determining the sum total of peoples' charitable donations.
