Those hideous uncompassionate conservatives....
 

source: http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm

THOSE HIDEOUS UNCOMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVES

Some group called The Chronicle of Philanthropy has compiled a list of the most and least generous areas in the United States when it comes to individuals giving money to charity.

This list of the most and least generous cities in the U.S. shows the amount of disposable income that is donated to charitable causes. Look at the list, and tell me if you see anything odd … politically speaking … about who does and doesn’t give.

Most Generous/Percentage
1. Salt Lake City-Ogden, Utah 14.9
2. Grand Rapids-Muskegon-Holland, Michigan 10.0
3. (tie) Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota 8.5
3. (tie) Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, North Carolina 8.5
5. (tie) Memphis, Tennessee 8.4
5. (tie) Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas 8.4 7. Nashville, Tennessee 8.3
8. (tie) San Antonio, Texas 8.1
8. (tie) Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, Texas 8.1
10. (tie) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 8.0
10. (tie) Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, Virginia 8.0

Least Generous/Percentage
1. Hartford, Connecticut 4.7
2. Providence-Fall River-Warwick, Rhode Island 5.1
3. Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, Massachusetts 5.2
4. Buffalo-Niagara Falls, New York 5.8
5. (tie) New Orleans, Louisiana 5.9
5. (tie) Las Vegas, Nevada 5.9
7. Austin-San Marcos, Texas 6.0
8. (tie) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 6.1
8. (tie) Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 6.1
8. (tie) Philadelphia-Wilmington, Delaware-Atlantic City, New Jersey 6.1

Have you figured it out yet? Let me help. Remember the great election map after the 2000 vote? The reds and the blues? If not, your link to that map is http://mwhodges.home.att.net/usmap-large.gif. The red areas on that map voted for George Bush. The blue areas voted for Al Gore. Check out the cities where people give generously to charities. For the most part, they voted for Bush. The least generous cities voted for Gore. In fact, you might remember a news story during the campaign showing how little money Al Gore gave to charity. Stories of that type are now surfacing about John Kerry.

The true story here is one of the nature of leftist compassion. When conservatives act compassionately, they do so with their own money. Liberals? They use your money..

Life
 

:( - Drinking in the morning is a sign to a possible addiction.

Fuzzy logic

Good call, Vince!

Yeah, great source. :rolleyes

And what sources should I go to, brandon? What ones are 100% factual that you believe on every little subject in existance?

Ones that don't feature a slack-jawed moron with a clear-cut agenda against anything slightly left of center.

Hmmm... lets see here. Since Boortz didn't do the report himself, he had to go by the report that was given out.

Neil Boortz: Most popular libertarian in America. Host a talk show that is listened to around the United States. Avation pilot and used to be a laywer.

ArtificalBrandon: Guy on a message board with a stupid handle. Hasn't done anything to improve society as to note. Doesn't seem to carry himself with any kind of intelligence, or add to a conversation.



Hmmm... now who should I be more inclined to trust?

Maybe it has nothing to do with their political affiliation, Vince. Maybe it's because the people in those cities wear more comfortable shoes. :(

I volunteer my time with charitable organizations, soup kitchens, clothing drives, etc.

I work with the homeless and hunger outreach branch of a public interest group in Albany, NY.

When I graduate, I will be working for a literacy program for underprivileged children in Texas.

I did NOT vote for George W. Bush.

What's my point? This study is bullshit. Financial donations, although very generous and kind, can be tax deductable. Not everyone who wants to help others can throw money they don't have around.

Show me enrollments, hours commited to charity organizations, and I'll care about bullshit like this.

This is yet another silly little ploy to somehow create "good guys" and "bad guys" out of ideologies, and it's rather petty, not to mention pathetic. You should use your time wiser, Vince. Any good nudie pics on your website (which is clearly not pornographic) yet...?

I don't for one second doubt that Vince's post was factual however, I myself would like to see a more in depth version of that study.

A = People who gave to charity
B = People who live in democratic populated areas
C = People who live in republican populated areas

If C, then some are A.
If B, then some are not A.
All B are not A.

Your argument has some SERIOUS logical flaws in it. Time to review basic logic Vince:

Rules of the syllogism:
1) There are only three terms in a syllogism (by definition).
2) The middle term is not in the conclusion (by definition).
3) The quantity of a term cannot become greater in the conclusion.
4) The middle term must be universally quantified in at least one premise.
5) At least one premise must be affirmative.
6) If one premise is negative, the conclusion is negative.
7) If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion is affirmative.
8) At least one premise must be universal.
9) If one premise is particular, the conclusion is particular.
10) In extensional logic, if both premises are universal, the conclusion is universal.

HE BLINDED ME WITH LOGIC! :eek

Thats a misapplication of Syllogism Kelly, but oddly, I didn't expect better from you. Let me reiterate what you were trying to say, because it would only be a syllogism if his argument was: Charitable People Vote For Bush.

In short:
___
People in A donate Amount X. People in B donate Amount Y.

Since Amount X is greater than Amount Y. People in A are more charitable.
___

People in A voted for Bush.

People in B voted for Gore.
___
Chairtable people vote for Bush.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

What Vince, or Boortz rather, did was compare the average monies spent on charitable causes in areas -again on average, this is important- in contrast with the average voting tendancy of the region. His findings are questionable, because he only takes into account one variable as Kevin has astutely noted, however though the argument may be wrong it is not logically flawed.

Actually, one thing that he didn't take into account at all was the fact that there are a lot of people who don't vote who give to charities. In addition, the percentage of people who are upper class in the entire U.S. is, in general, low. Place them in a highly populated city, such as in the east coast where many Democrats happen to statistically reside, then of course you're going to come up with a low per capita percentage. There are just too many factors involved (or NOT mentioned) in his argument to make any kind of reasonable assessment from the facts. It's far too much of a generalization based on the premises.

Yeah, but it's "facts" and bad logic like this that the average stupid person falls for immediately.

Hitler was the leader of a country.
Bush is the leader of a country.
Hitler was evil,
Therefore, Bush is evil.

HOW'S THAT? ;)

Yeah, but the difference is that I believe YOUR argument. :)

Which in turn would make you an idiot.

This discussion of logic, wwhile edifying, is almost certainly beyond Vince's grasp and will only infuriatte him.

I'll adress some speciffics for my home state Massachusetts. We are frequently cited as a hugely liberal state. Our last four Governors were Republican. Lawrence? It's not just a name, It's one of the poorest cities per capita on the East coast, and it has been for all of nearly fourty years I've lived here. There have been three major economic recoveries during that time and Lawrence has not participated in any of them. It is one large slum.

I don't know much about this report. I don't know the agency, I don't know who funds it, I don't know if they took volunteer hours into account, I don't know what sort of research tool they used, I don't know what they define as 'charity', I'm sure Vince doesn't know any of these things either, and I'd guess that neither does Boortz.

No, Max, the problem is that some site just put this information up based on data it gathered. It was meant to be a quick snip and nothing else. I put it up here just to be an asshole and you are dissecting it like you found the fucking Ark of the Covenant, which i doubt you believe in, being a hertiage-traitor.

And you say I am self important.

Fact:

Many of the densely populated east coast cities you mentioned are democratic.

Many of the smaller cities and rural areas are republican.

Here, for example is a map breaking down the U.S. states by party affiliation in the senate to confirm those two facts:

Party Affiliation Map for U.S. Senate

Say that you're looking at those people with the most disposable income who give to charities in the whole U.S. ... let's say the top 5%.

Placing just an hundred of these 5 percenters in a densely populated area such as Boston barely makes a dent in a city that is largely democratic; therefore making the democrats look like uncharitable jerks. >:

Place those same in smaller cities or sparsely populated areas where, on average, many republicans reside and the percentage of charitable republicans takes a major jump up in the percentage. Bunch of Rockefellers, right? :rolleyes

It's skewed reporting and skewed mathematics. Period. Case closed. Bar none. :(

I'm pleased you managed to get off a Jew joke. I'd hate tio think you'd missed a chance to mine what for you hags turned out to be a very rich comedic vein.

"I put it up here just to be an asshole"
See, that's where I went astray. I thought this was the "Philosophy/Sociology/Religion/Politics/News/etc." and really never thought of the etc. as covering "Things Vince does just to be an asshole." which was less than fair.

When you say 'just', do you mean that to indicate exclusivity or are you using it as some sort of space filler? Do you really mean your post had no other intention beyond showing you are an asshole? In that it was highly succesful and I'm more than ever convinced that you are indeed an asshole. But do you really mean any belief in or appreciattion of the material you posted is les than coinicidental? If so, you are even more of an asshole. It's win/win for you Vince.

What the fuck is "tio think?" Is some kind of new Jewish cult I have never heard of?

And I am glad you considred that I should have my own board. That would rule. In fact, I have one for my site already.

I won? That rules!

I think we all know how pointless it is to ridicule spelling on a message board. No one here has perfect spelling...

you should have "considred" that before you started.

The problem is not in the spelling of words really; the problem lies in the fact that Vince has to start low-balling everytime he doesn't get the response he expected. Or, when out of reasonable arguements, he starts "hissy-fitting" and goes over to being bias. Whichever way, he has chosen to discuss has, this far proven itself immature...

And of course, your above statement is the proper grown-up responce to such behaviour :rolleyes