What happens if Republicans manage to knock 20 million Americans off health care?

[Lewdog]

[

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

And I can tell you first hand because I see it here in the south, just because you give to a church it isn't really charity. That money doesn't go to the homeless, or the poor families, or other things in the community. It goes to building a bigger church, or church outings, or other church related activities.

"However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives."

That's a MIT study? Bullshit. It's an opinion looking for facts to support a conclusion. Nothing is quantified. Not all churches build or move, salaries, income and expenses aren't the same anywhere.

Liberals give a homeless guy a few bucks from their Lexus and they are good for a month. Giving as much as 10% of you income is huge, especially if you aren't doing that well.

That "study" refers to liberals giving more to secular causes, not PEOPLE.

If you are going to quote my post, and then try to refute it, then quote the entire post and not cherry picking. I quoted the part that came directly from an MIT study. Don't like it? Well stick your fingers in your ears and click your heels together three times.

 

[pismoe]

all the soup kitchens and homeless shelters are generally churches . Also as a former landlord i have seen several times that people that cant afford their rent or utilities go to churches where the church will write a check [if warrented] to pay the renters rent or utilities .

 

[BlueGin]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

You are full of shit...

Oh look... Habitat for Humanity is listed as a "Christian" charity.

Category:Christian charities based in the United States - Wikipedia

 

[pismoe]

liberal church members do donate to planned parenthood and abortion providers though . [just a comment]

 

[Iceweasel]

[

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

And I can tell you first hand because I see it here in the south, just because you give to a church it isn't really charity. That money doesn't go to the homeless, or the poor families, or other things in the community. It goes to building a bigger church, or church outings, or other church related activities.

"However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives."

That's a MIT study? Bullshit. It's an opinion looking for facts to support a conclusion. Nothing is quantified. Not all churches build or move, salaries, income and expenses aren't the same anywhere.

Liberals give a homeless guy a few bucks from their Lexus and they are good for a month. Giving as much as 10% of you income is huge, especially if you aren't doing that well.

That "study" refers to liberals giving more to secular causes, not PEOPLE.

If you are going to quote my post, and then try to refute it, then quote the entire post and not cherry picking. I quoted the part that came directly from an MIT study. Don't like it? Well stick your fingers in your ears and click your heels together three times.

I did refute your idiotic post, asshole. Stick your finger back in your ass and lick it clean.

Your link was from a political religious site, not MIT. They tried to use part of it to criticize church tithing. But as I said it links to the study that includes liberals giving more to secular causes, not people. Don't like it? Tough shit. All you have is stupidity piled on top of hate and intolerance.

 

[EverCurious]

I think the bigger point of it all is that donating to a church is voluntary.

It is not the governments job to dictate how someone spends their money - I honestly don't give two shits if you want to say it's to improve someone's life or save children or anything else. Robin Hood was a thief and I will never condone thievery.

I'm fine to pay taxes for things that help /all/ Americans - the military and some federal government (although I have serious issues with how much of the pot they have their fingers into) but out side matters of /national/ safety not so much.

 

[Lewdog]

...and as I was going to say anyway, part of that takes into account donating to their own church, which isn't necessarily giving to those in need. From an article by MIT that can be found at this website:

So what do you think churches do with that money besides support the church itself and perhaps a school?

They pay the bills, they pay the pastor, they pay for the pastor's house...they save the money and build bigger churches...

It makes me sick every time I see these huge churches, and the money spent that could actually do something good. I used to live in Ohio, and I would regularly drive by the Solid Rock Church along I-75. It made me sick. You might know the church as the home of Butter Jesus. It was the HUGE Jesus statue that got struck by lightening and burned down. Sign from God maybe?



So what odes the church do? They build another HUGE statute in its place.

You are full of shit...

Oh look... Habitat for Humanity is listed as a "Christian" charity.

Category:Christian charities based in the United States - Wikipedia

AND? Look at this report, 44% of ALL U.S. adults that are part of a religious group are Democrat, 37% Republican, and 18% Independent. So what's your point? Let me lay this out to you as simple as I can, maybe you'll get it, probably not.

U.S. religious groups and their political leanings

So Republicans, by the numbers donate more to charity, which takes into account donations to churches. Republicans donate mostly in the south and in states like Utah that are mostly Mormon. I say, and have shown additional "supporting opinions" that, that money mostly stays within the church for salaries, bills, construction, and maintenance costs for the church. You say that is untrue and that most of the church money goes for food banks, homeless shelters, and soup kitchens. I say that the areas where the Republicans are recorded as giving the most money, there aren't many soup kitchens, homeless shelters, and food banks... those are predominantly in the areas of the country where the Democrats give the most money. For example, here is a site that shows the top 10 homeless states in America, notice that most of them are in the Upper Midwest, the North East, and the West Coast, all where Democrats give the most donations. 3 out of the top 4 states are in these locations.

10 Most Homeless States in America

Also, as has been detailed on this board MANY times in the past, the same areas that are shown that Democrats give the most donations, are areas where Democrats make more money than Republicans. Coincidence?

So what is there left to argue here?

 

[Lewdog]

[

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

And I can tell you first hand because I see it here in the south, just because you give to a church it isn't really charity. That money doesn't go to the homeless, or the poor families, or other things in the community. It goes to building a bigger church, or church outings, or other church related activities.

"However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives."

That's a MIT study? Bullshit. It's an opinion looking for facts to support a conclusion. Nothing is quantified. Not all churches build or move, salaries, income and expenses aren't the same anywhere.

Liberals give a homeless guy a few bucks from their Lexus and they are good for a month. Giving as much as 10% of you income is huge, especially if you aren't doing that well.

That "study" refers to liberals giving more to secular causes, not PEOPLE.

If you are going to quote my post, and then try to refute it, then quote the entire post and not cherry picking. I quoted the part that came directly from an MIT study. Don't like it? Well stick your fingers in your ears and click your heels together three times.

I did refute your idiotic post, asshole. Stick your finger back in your ass and lick it clean.

Your link was from a political religious site, not MIT. They tried to use part of it to criticize church tithing. But as I said it links to the study that includes liberals giving more to secular causes, not people. Don't like it? Tough shit. All you have is stupidity piled on top of hate and intolerance.

the fucking site referenced the MIT study. I even said that in my post, but as a troll that you are, you cut that off in responding to me, which is extremely unethical and misleading. Is that a reportable offense around here? Or is it only something you can report if they quote you and then change your words in your quote?

 

[Lewdog]

Maybe the answer is this... every year when you fill out your taxes, you check boxes on where you want your money to go. Then all the Republicans can check boxes for the military and infrastructure. Then all the Liberals can check boxes for the health care and education. So then what happens? It all ends up evening out and it is the same as if we all just paid for everything... but instead we have another government group that has to go through and check everyone's taxes and where their money goes, and that government group costs us millions of dollars a year to operate.

 

[Iceweasel]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

 

[Iceweasel]

[

Republicans Most Generous People In The World, Democrats: Not So Much

And I can tell you first hand because I see it here in the south, just because you give to a church it isn't really charity. That money doesn't go to the homeless, or the poor families, or other things in the community. It goes to building a bigger church, or church outings, or other church related activities.

"However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives."

That's a MIT study? Bullshit. It's an opinion looking for facts to support a conclusion. Nothing is quantified. Not all churches build or move, salaries, income and expenses aren't the same anywhere.

Liberals give a homeless guy a few bucks from their Lexus and they are good for a month. Giving as much as 10% of you income is huge, especially if you aren't doing that well.

That "study" refers to liberals giving more to secular causes, not PEOPLE.

If you are going to quote my post, and then try to refute it, then quote the entire post and not cherry picking. I quoted the part that came directly from an MIT study. Don't like it? Well stick your fingers in your ears and click your heels together three times.

I did refute your idiotic post, asshole. Stick your finger back in your ass and lick it clean.

Your link was from a political religious site, not MIT. They tried to use part of it to criticize church tithing. But as I said it links to the study that includes liberals giving more to secular causes, not people. Don't like it? Tough shit. All you have is stupidity piled on top of hate and intolerance.

the fucking site referenced the MIT study. I even said that in my post, but as a troll that you are, you cut that off in responding to me, which is extremely unethical and misleading. Is that a reportable offense around here? Or is it only something you can report if they quote you and then change your words in your quote?

I quote what I want to fuckstick. I quoted the portion I wanted to respond to. Don't like it take your pussy someplace else. The MIT study doesn't back you up because YOU want to exclude church giving.

 

[Lewdog]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

 

[BlueGin]

Maybe the answer is this... every year when you fill out your taxes, you check boxes on where you want your money to go. Then all the Republicans can check boxes for the military and infrastructure. Then all the Liberals can check boxes for the health care and education. So then what happens? It all ends up evening out and it is the same as if we all just paid for everything... but instead we have another government group that has to go through and check everyone's taxes and where their money goes, and that government group costs us millions of dollars a year to operate.

How many secular US based charities are there do you think?

 

[BlueGin]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

Especially considering that's where most of the money goes that props up Obamacare. To the people that run it... Not the poor.

 

[Iceweasel]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

Your posts are still there, genius. How can I cut anything out? You dumb bastard. You quoted a portion that you dishonestly tried to pawn off without considering church giving, because of your hatred of churches.

Oh, and scholarly studies are not a collection of opinions, they are facts. Do you know what a fact is? You posted NONE.

 

[Lewdog]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

Your posts are still there, genius. How can I cut anything out? You dumb bastard. You quoted a portion that you dishonestly tried to pawn off without considering church giving, because of your hatred of churches.

Oh, and scholarly studies are not a collection of opinions, they are facts. Do you know what a fact is? You posted NONE.

I quoted the part of the page that was quoting the study, and even said in my post I was doing so. Your response was directed AT THAT part of my post, but you didn't even quote that part. That's extremely dishonest. No wonder so many people on this forum think so poorly of you. You've proven how worthy of that you are.

and the rest of the web post was their opinions, and I said that much so. I never tried to report the rest of it as fact, but their opinion which parroted my opinion from personal experiences. If anything I was making sure to be honest, unlike yourself.

 

[BlueGin]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

Your posts are still there, genius. How can I cut anything out? You dumb bastard. You quoted a portion that you dishonestly tried to pawn off without considering church giving, because of your hatred of churches.

Oh, and scholarly studies are not a collection of opinions, they are facts. Do you know what a fact is? You posted NONE.

Notice how when he can't provide secular charities that provide an equal amount of service. He all of the sudden takes credit for the majority of Christian donations. What a loon.

 

[Iceweasel]

I quoted the part of the page that was quoting the study, and even said in my post I was doing so. Your response was directed AT THAT part of my post, but you didn't even quote that part. That's extremely dishonest. No wonder so many people on this forum think so poorly of you. You've proven how worthy of that you are.

and the rest of the web post was their opinions, and I said that much so. I never tried to report the rest of it as fact, but their opinion which parroted my opinion from personal experiences. If anything I was making sure to be honest, unlike yourself.

You keep pounding your chest thinking you're special and can speak for the world. You're just an anti-religious whack job that dishonesty cherry picks to supports your hate filled agenda. The study doesn't back you up. Get some air, you're loosing it.

 

[Lewdog]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

Your posts are still there, genius. How can I cut anything out? You dumb bastard. You quoted a portion that you dishonestly tried to pawn off without considering church giving, because of your hatred of churches.

Oh, and scholarly studies are not a collection of opinions, they are facts. Do you know what a fact is? You posted NONE.

Notice how when he can't provide secular charities that provide an equal amount of service. He all of the sudden takes credit for the majority of Christian donations. What a loon.

WTF are you talking about? You want to make a claim, and I HAVE to do all your information digging? Since when is that how an argument works?

 

[BlueGin]

So what is there left to argue here?

Not much, you're a lunatic on a mission that puts up sources that doesn't even agree with what you are trying to say. You want to somehow EXCLUDE tithing because you feel it just goes to church overhead. You are dishonest and fueled by anti-religious bigotry.

How the fuck is that dishonest when I even showed another source that parroted my same opinion... and even quoted a fucking MIT study as proof? You're the dishonest troll by cutting that part out of my quoted response. I guess I've found another troll to put on ignore in this thread.

Your posts are still there, genius. How can I cut anything out? You dumb bastard. You quoted a portion that you dishonestly tried to pawn off without considering church giving, because of your hatred of churches.

Oh, and scholarly studies are not a collection of opinions, they are facts. Do you know what a fact is? You posted NONE.

Notice how when he can't provide secular charities that provide an equal amount of service. He all of the sudden takes credit for the majority of Christian donations. What a loon.

WTF are you talking about? You want to make a claim, and I HAVE to do all your information digging? Since when is that how an argument works?

I know what they are. Question is do you?