Stomach Churning move in Virginia state Senate

[flips333]

It would be interesting to see what party does the most charity work not just donates the most. Have like a simple survey what party are you and how many times do you volunteer in a year.

Yeah the donation thing is a little skewed. For example the state with highest % donated is Utah... But a ridiculous proportion of that is to the Mormon Church. I think there is a difference between believing that to maintain your faith you have to give a certain % of your money, and giving money.

I would have no doubt that the republicans give more and volunteer more... But I also have no doubt that democrats are more likely to choose charitable careers... (Social Work, Science, education). When you work 70 hours as a professor trying to better society (for way less than you could earn in industry) isn't that charity in itself? I think so.

Regardless I would be willing to bet the differences between donations within a party, are far far far greater than the differences between parties.

[AmsterNat]

It would be interesting to see what party does the most charity work not just donates the most. Have like a simple survey what party are you and how many times do you volunteer in a year.

This old Rep canard again? Right wingers, especially business owners, love to pat themselves on the back about their charitable works for those less fortunate, while at the same time maintaining all their prejudices and continuing to look down their noses with disdain at those less fortunate or, in their terms, less clever and less hard working. These people would be better off learning to be more compassionate human beings in their general outlook on life rather than crowing about the amount of their 'good works'.

Libs demonize all the time. Now the Republicans are in trouble right now because of the Tea Party and the fact that voters can't seem to elect a conservative to run against Obama. If Rubio or Santorum runs in 2016, I would be shocked if they didn't win. Social conservatism isn't the problem. Most people feel abortion is wrong.

You have shown occasional flashes of common sense, particularly with regard to the Tea baggers and the NRA. Then you go and spoil your new image with a post like this! As others have noted, you really would be very hard pressed to find anyone more completely batshit insane, and more utterly unelectable than Santorum. This is the man who claimed that we have a national policy here in Holland to euthanize old people. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I don't recall him ever issuing a retraction and accepting that he spoke bull (to put it as politely as I can). In case it passed you by, try googling "spreading Santorum".

I am on my knees praying for a Santorum run in the general election. You really want to run Aiken and Murdoch rolled up in one neat package on a national ticket. Please, please do that.

What a hoot that would be! He'd be McGoverned.

Steelman, please be sure you do not bet the ranch on this.

The republicans have no clue how to run an election. Romney would have been a great president and he lost. Most people look at the Republic party as grumpy old white guys like Charles Krauthammer. We need to seriously turn the image around and I don't see that happening. We're the pain in the *** uncle Fred that show up for Thanksgiving dinner and bores everyone. When will he go home.

We could run a ticket of Abraham Lincoln/Thomas jefferson and the Dems will run Hillary or (wait for this one) Michelle Obama and we would be clobbered.

The party needs an overhaul…badly.

(Don't laugh at the Michelle Obama idea. I think it could happen.)

Given your views as expressed here in recent days, it makes sense that you would believe that Romney would have been a "great" president. You both share the same view of "the 47%". The rest of us know that he would have been worse than what we have now.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the image of the Rep. party - grumpy, angry, middle aged white folks, mainly men, constantly being sniped at by younger, and far more extreme, challengers from their own loony wing. As long as what we are seeing today continues, the Reps will remain unelectable. Obviously, I hope that this situation continues ad infinitum.....or, at least till after the second Clinton administration, by which time a fundamentally different SCOTUS can finally set about the important work of restoring some degree of sanity to US life and politics.

Sorry, I can't imagine that anyone else except you, and a few of your fellow travelers, has ever considered for one moment the notion of the FLOTUS running for the highest office. Another drop of scare-mongering silliness from the wrong wing's deep well of paranoia.

[cabernetluver]

It would be interesting to see what party does the most charity work not just donates the most. Have like a simple survey what party are you and how many times do you volunteer in a year.

The underlying problem to your question would be what charitable contributions you are going to count. While donations to ones house of worship are considered charity, I would not count them. The same would be any donation that gives naming or named rights (giving to your own college to get a building with your name on it as an example). I would also have problems counting donations to an establishment that you in fact use (for example, I give money to my community theater, and separately attend. I get a benefit out of my contribution). In the end, my gut tells me, if we are talking about semi anonymous gifts, to charities that give no public affirmation, as a percentage of income, it is most likely the same.

When Mitt Romney's contributions to charity were carefully examined, they were overwhelmingly to his own church. To me, that should not be counted in your survey. Here in Los Angeles, the owner of the Clippers, Don Sterling, gives large chunks of money, then takes out full page ads in the Los Angeles Times to let all of us know. To me, this should not be counted.

In summary, this is not a simple quantitative issue.

[Sota4Ever]

I actually wanted to exclude donations completely. I guess when I said not just donations it meant that I would include them. I would just take into effect volunteering at a soup kitchen or habitat for humanity. Stuff like that, not giving money to a hospital. Sorry for the confusion.

[cabernetluver]

I actually wanted to exclude donations completely. I guess when I said not just donations it meant that I would include them. I would just take into effect volunteering at a soup kitchen or habitat for humanity. Stuff like that, not giving money to a hospital. Sorry for the confusion.

Okay. What about volunteer hours put into fund raising? I put myself up as an example. I spend hundreds of hours donating time for a major fund raising event to help women with breast cancer. Would that count, or, are you looking for direct labor only?

[subroc]

When people see your party has demonizing them in order to raise money, it turns out that turns them away from your party. It isn't "Obama-phones" that turn minorities to the Democrats as much as it is the dog whistles that GOP elected and un-ellected officials use that push people away. Calling the president "lazy" and saying that he "doesn't understand America". Calling those who support him takers and implying that only those who vote for the GOP truly understand what America is supposed to be...

Ahhh, the old dog whistle canard.

Lefties, democrats and liberals only hear those dog whistle words and phrases as a method to vilify those on the right, conservatives and republicans. They ignore them completely or find convenient excuses to accept them when a lefty or liberal uses the same phrasing.

A vilifying left wing tactic based on a phony thesis whose only goal is to demonize the right.

You have been caught.

[Sota4Ever]

Okay. What about volunteer hours put into fund raising? I put myself up as an example. I spend hundreds of hours donating time for a major fund raising event to help women with breast cancer. Would that count, or, are you looking for direct labor only?

That would definitely be included. Mostly talking about time dedicated to do something.

[dbroncos78087]

Ahhh, the old dog whistle canard.

Lefties, democrats and liberals only hear those dog whistle words and phrases as a method to vilify those on the right, conservatives and republicans. They ignore them completely or find convenient excuses to accept them when a lefty or liberal uses the same phrasing.

A vilifying left wing tactic based on a phony thesis whose only goal is to demonize the right.

You have been caught.

I never said they were effective dog whistles. But I'm sorry you don't like the premise that the GOP uses by talking ill of minorities and using terms like "lazy" to describe our President. Claiming that he "doesn't understand America" to talk to folks who really believe he was born in Kenya.

If you think that I try to demonize those on the right why don't you talk to BMD, hoosier, or any other conservative poster on this forum and ask them when I've demonized them. I "demonize" people who I think deserve it. If someone wants to be a racist, bigot, or moron and call our President "lazy" or say he is an "imperialist", then I will call them exactly what I see them as. So if you don't like people of your party being tagged like that, and you don't like being tagged like that for associating with them, then either prove me wrong or don't associate with fools.

[Steel Curtain]

You have shown occasional flashes of common sense, particularly with regard to the Tea baggers and the NRA. Then you go and spoil your new image with a post like this! As others have noted, you really would be very hard pressed to find anyone more completely batshit insane, and more utterly unelectable than Santorum. This is the man who claimed that we have a national policy here in Holland to euthanize old people. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I don't recall him ever issuing a retraction and accepting that he spoke bull (to put it as politely as I can). In case it passed you by, try googling "spreading Santorum".

I am on my knees praying for a Santorum run in the general election. You really want to run Aiken and Murdoch rolled up in one neat package on a national ticket. Please, please do that.

I fear anyone who thinks Santorum could win a general election being able to operate heavy machinery. It's just nuts to think Santorum can win anything.

I had to double check to see if I had really said Santorum. I am not sure what I was thinking when I posted Santorum. I know you're probably thinking I'm covering my arse but I promise I'm not. Rubio, definitely though, many conservatives are very high on him.

[cabernetluver]

I had to double check to see if I had really said Santorum. I am not sure what I was thinking when I posted Santorum. I know you're probably thinking I'm covering my arse but I promise I'm not. Rubio, definitely though, many conservatives are very high on him.

Although you and I come from different sides of the country, and different sides of the political spectrum, I think giving you a break on this one seems like the only fair thing to do.

That said, if you voted for him for senator, it would be easy to let that slip on by. I am guessing you did. Not accusing you, just guessing.

[AmsterNat]

Although you and I come from different sides of the country, and different sides of the political spectrum, I think giving you a break on this one seems like the only fair thing to do.

Agreed! I thought it was out of character too.

[jomota]

This old Rep canard again? Right wingers, especially business owners, love to pat themselves on the back about their charitable works for those less fortunate, while at the same time maintaining all their prejudices and continuing to look down their noses with disdain at those less fortunate or, in their terms, less clever and less hard working. These people would be better off learning to be more compassionate human beings in their general outlook on life rather than crowing about the amount of their 'good works'.



You have shown occasional flashes of common sense, particularly with regard to the Tea baggers and the NRA. Then you go and spoil your new image with a post like this! As others have noted, you really would be very hard pressed to find anyone more completely batshit insane, and more utterly unelectable than Santorum. This is the man who claimed that we have a national policy here in Holland to euthanize old people. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I don't recall him ever issuing a retraction and accepting that he spoke bull (to put it as politely as I can). In case it passed you by, try googling "spreading Santorum".



What a hoot that would be! He'd be McGoverned.




Given your views as expressed here in recent days, it makes sense that you would believe that Romney would have been a "great" president. You both share the same view of "the 47%". The rest of us know that he would have been worse than what we have now.

I agree entirely with your assessment of the image of the Rep. party - grumpy, angry, middle aged white folks, mainly men, constantly being sniped at by younger, and far more extreme, challengers from their own loony wing. As long as what we are seeing today continues, the Reps will remain unelectable. Obviously, I hope that this situation continues ad infinitum.....or, at least till after the second Clinton administration, by which time a fundamentally different SCOTUS can finally set about the important work of restoring some degree of sanity to US life and politics.

Sorry, I can't imagine that anyone else except you, and a few of your fellow travelers, has ever considered for one moment the notion of the FLOTUS running for the highest office. Another drop of scare-mongering silliness from the wrong wing's deep well of paranoia.

How is this scare mongering???? How does Michelle Obama scare anyone???? And how is Hillary running any different than Michelle running???? Do you think Hillary's years between the White House and now really mean anything. The object is not selecting the best candidate, it is selecting the most electable. Michelle will get the same 95% of the black vote. Her ability is not an issue at all. Don't be surprises if FLOTUS runs. Democrats would see it as keeping God on earth in the White House. She could easily win.

And by the way, I'm not totally against Hillary. She was smarter than Bill and she's head and shoulders smarter than Obama. It wouldn't bother me all that much if she won.

[jomota]

The underlying problem to your question would be what charitable contributions you are going to count. While donations to ones house of worship are considered charity, I would not count them. The same would be any donation that gives naming or named rights (giving to your own college to get a building with your name on it as an example). I would also have problems counting donations to an establishment that you in fact use (for example, I give money to my community theater, and separately attend. I get a benefit out of my contribution). In the end, my gut tells me, if we are talking about semi anonymous gifts, to charities that give no public affirmation, as a percentage of income, it is most likely the same.

When Mitt Romney's contributions to charity were carefully examined, they were overwhelmingly to his own church. To me, that should not be counted in your survey. Here in Los Angeles, the owner of the Clippers, Don Sterling, gives large chunks of money, then takes out full page ads in the Los Angeles Times to let all of us know. To me, this should not be counted.

In summary, this is not a simple quantitative issue.

So Romney's generous donations to his church don't count???? Really???? Giving a donation to a place where you know where the money goes don't count???? Man, you're priceless.

I guess Mitt should have donated his money in cash to all those people standing out there in traffic holdinh up little signs. That would have been better. Maybe go down to those free clinics and spread a little cash around.

You can't make this stuff up.

Priceless, just priceless.

[cabernetluver]

So Romney's generous donations to his church don't count???? Really???? Giving a donation to a place where you know where the money goes don't count???? Man, you're priceless.

I guess Mitt should have donated his money in cash to all those people standing out there in traffic holdinh up little signs. That would have been better. Maybe go down to those free clinics and spread a little cash around.

You can't make this stuff up.

Priceless, just priceless.

No, not as charity. Of course in a legal sense they do, but not in a charitable sense. It is like giving money to yourself. Interesting, you did not jump on the part where I also said that me giving money to my community theater was not charity. Now of course, it is a 501 (c) (3) charity so it counts in a legal sense. And for exactly the same reason. It is like giving something to myself.

I stated where I give of my time. Want to troll about working to help women with breast cancer. Oh, now there is an example of charity. Or maybe the American Cancer Society, now there is a worthy charity that is not the same as giving to yourself.

Of course, a well thought out response from you that was not based in trolling would be welcome. At least once.

[jomota]

No, not as charity. Of course in a legal sense they do, but not in a charitable sense. It is like giving money to yourself. Interesting, you did not jump on the part where I also said that me giving money to my community theater was not charity. Now of course, it is a 501 (c) (3) charity so it counts in a legal sense. And for exactly the same reason. It is like giving something to myself.

I stated where I give of my time. Want to troll about working to help women with breast cancer. Oh, now there is an example of charity. Or maybe the American Cancer Society, now there is a worthy charity that is not the same as giving to yourself.

Of course, a well thought out response from you that was not based in trolling would be welcome. At least once.

Any money taken out of your pocket given to a group, individual, organization, etc. that in turn uses that money for the good of others is a charitable donation. Don't know why you can't see that.

Frankly, I'm against donating to the community theater or any subsidies for so called cultural endeavors. Theraters, artists, performing arts centers etc. should be able to stand on their own. If the people want it, it will survive; if they don't it won't. But, it;s your money. Do as you wish.

And I =guess any view that doesn't agree with you could not possible be well thought out and that person just has to be a troll. What else could he possible be????