I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
Boy, that shup everybody up.
I tipped.
It's the only use that I have now for that stupid PayPal account since I can't get any porn with it 
(wtf is up with that anyway?)
I figure I tip just as much for the crappy service at my local restaurant then it's the least I could do for someone providing a service that has much greater impact on my life.
Maybe you should go asking for contributions from GOP bloggers as Conservatives are more generous.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/11.../
11052003.shtml
Obviously Glenn Beck is a little biased, but he has a link to the hard data from an outside source that corroborates his graph.
Maybe Ann Coulter would donate a couple bucks, she seems like a nice lady...
gold star to anyone who points out the obvious reason why that inference is flawed.
-5 gopteamleader points
Uhoh, I have made an INFERENCE.
Well, if I am wrong about Ann Coulter, you could always try Rush; He's always in the spirit of giving.
Atrios you're killin' me man, what's wrong with my INFERENCE's??? Are they overheating? Did the trouble light go on? Illuminate the problem so that I may more thoroughly expound.
When Rush gives, does he send a cigar box with a note that says "Here's the cabbage"? Or does he only do that when he is illegally buying dangerous drugs on the street?
My inferences have been besmirched by a cold callous oppressor. I feel awful.
Here you go, if you can draw inferences about charity and party affiliation from that chart.
Then I can draw the following inference that objectively proves that Republicans are all Scrooges.
How Americans Give shows that as income increases, the percentage given as a portion of discretionary income drops dramatically.
Exit Polls from the 2000 election This shows that as income increases you are more likely to be a Republican.
Most rich people are republicans AND most rich people are uncharitable asshats, THEREFORE most republicans are asshats.
Case closed.
PS: I believe this inference is a fallacy of Common Cause
Hmm, maybe it's the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
The problem with that first link is that it is all a percentage based on discretionary income.
If you are a billionaire and you give 10 million dollars to a charity, that is only 1% of your worth.
Also I don't understand how the 2nd link proves what you are trying to say. Your exit polls (which is flawed simply because it is only votes and people DO cross party lines in elections) show that the Upper Class voted for Gore by a HUGE margin...
Also your link clearly shows that the senior citizen vote went to Gore by a large margin...
Your final inference is marred by the fact that your view of the exit polls is incorrect given the information.
Also, IMO CNN is a heavily biased news source, but I didn't factor that into my reading of the 'impartial survey'
CASE CLOSED
Ignore the brownshirt.
Or better yet, every time he posts, give Rittenhouse five bucks.
Thank you for proving my point. I was indeed trying to show that the chart you linked to is quite silly. Although most republicans are indeed asshats, it isn't proven by the statistics I cited.
Also you say that rich people voted for gore by a "LARGE margin"
Over 100k - Gore 43 %, Bush - 54 %
Err... WTF?
Anyhoo, if the rich were a state then they would of been a *RED* state and would therefore prove the opposite of what you are trying to infer (that republicans are charitable).
Cheers
That would mean liberals giving charitably dave, you and I both know liberals only give charitably when it's someone else's tax money...not their own.
I wonder how much Michael Moore's fat ass gives to charity?
Or how about Sen. Gebhard?
well, gephardt isn't a senator and for the record michael moore has given huge amounts to a lot of causes over the years.
Gryn:
Upper Class: 56% Gore 39% Bush
Upper Middle: 43% Gore 54% Bush
The top 4% overwhelmingly voted for Gore...
Hmm...you are right about the >100K statistic...that is kind of an awkward disparity in your source.
The only way I can explain it is that the Upper Middle is >100K and the Upper Class is over some higher number not defined by the survey.
As far as the defense of my graph, all it is is a 'generosity index' it shows by state which is richest and which gives the most, figured out the difference between the two and ranked them in order of that difference. Then Glenn Beck took the time to take that ranking made by the center for philanthropy and color code it to show which voted for who in the 2000 election.
Blah, I'm sorry Representative Gebhardt, happy?
Michael Moore certainly does live (and eat) well for someone who is a 'man of the people'.
yes, we know, liberals aren't allowed to make any money because if they do they're hypocrites. Only when one chooses to live in a cardboard box is it acceptable to be a liberal.
Guess everyone took the day off in the boilerroom today, leaving only one lonely third-level troll who didn't get on the Christmas OT gravy train and is trying to make up for lost time.
In other words: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
No, I am all for people making money. But when you have someone who is very wealthy telling ME that I am greedy because I don't want to pay higher taxes then I have a problem.
It is just so hypocritical that the party that claims to be for the people is for the most part lead and comprised of affluent members. The DNC has the richest members of congress (I'm sure they relate well to the crackhead on welfare though right?)
Look at fundraising for the 2004 Presidential Campaign.
DNC: 2 Billionaires donated over 2/3 of their campaign money via 527 companies.
GOP: Over 75% of their campaign money comes from independent donations of $1,000 or less...
But you give the masses the welfare they need to stfu so the DNC is the party of the people.
Double ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
Dave: No family out here, and I had to work Christmas day...
Now *you* are being either willfully mendacious or obtuse.
Here's the chart from the CNN page
Income, % for Gore, % for Bush
Under $15,000, 57 %, 37 %
$15-30,000, 54 %, 41 %
$30-50,000, 49 %, 48 %
$50-75,000, 46 %, 51 %
$75-100,000, 45 %, 52 %
Over $100,000 43 %, 54 %
Also you claim that a billionare giving 1 % is more charitable than a poor person giving 10 % since the absolute amount is bigger.
That's fine, whatever, but then that contradicts the chart since it's index is freakin' based on the income vs. amount given. Therefore our hypothetical rich state will show up at the bottom of that very index. You will notice that there is a very strong correlation between average income and it's placement on the index (i.e. poor states are high and rich states are low).
Alas, it is unfortunate that logical consistency is held in such low regard by the right these days.
The BEST part of these comments was reading that Virtus felt all "besmirched."
Dave, I've admired your calm persistence in calling for us to ignore the brownshirts, but I've also understood (as you have) the desire to swat. Reading pleas by Virtus to have his inference addressed so that he could expound brought a smile to my face because it seems to be an answer to the dilemma:
Someone sets up a blog to which those who wish to respond to the Virtus-like can be posted. Email the responses to this volunteer. Once they're posted, you'd get a return email with the link. Then we can make veiled references to the great smackdowns we used in a location the ilk will never find whilst we grin and ignore each time they post here.
Hey, we do it already if we have an officious, pontificating uncle on the maternal side of the family, don't we?
Being newly-unemployed and soon to be seen at a local shopping center parking lot near you holding a sign that says "Will Design Bumper Stickers For Food," I figured it would be a stretch to even tip Rittenhouse five bucks, and what would be the point of that? But then it occured to me if 100 people reading this chipped in five bucks, that could really make a dent in M. Rittenhouse's immediate problems. So what the hell - let's do it!
Sorry, I meant: let's do it!
Goddam Haloscan... just use the link Atrios provided...
Gryn:
Again Gore%/Bush%
Upper Class 56%/39%
Upper-Middle 27%/43%
Middle Class 46%/48%
Working Class 18%/51%
You are picking the graph that condenses the guy who makes $100,001 and the guy who makes $10 Billion, I am just using data from YOUR biased (CNN) source.
Not only does have a lock on those richest-of-rich, but look who has a lock on the Working Class? (Lower Class not included because they made up 2% of the total vote and 0%/0% for Gore/Bush...whatever that means)
Party of the people my ass.
Also, there is only SO much a person is willing to give. Think about it like this, if you are working class and you see a bum on the street, what are you going to give him? Lets say your super generous so you give $5 (nice 'donation') now say you are middle class, you are still going to give a similar amount because you don't think of your donation as a % of your income so much as a social norm. ie: It is about right to give X amount.
As far as my chart, you're conclusions are AGAIN false and misleading because: The Chart I presented includes an entire states demographics, both rich and poor.
And, as mentioned above, if you have the wherewithal to contribute five bucks everytime the brownshirt spouts off --
KA-CHING!!!
Dixie: Your name sounds like some sort of reference to the Racist South, so I elected not to read your comments...although I saw my name in there, I hope you didn't say anything derogatory about me.
Dave: I am sorry to hear of your financial woes, but like the Chinese proverb says (to summarize) "Take the good with the bad" Maybe this will be an opportunity for you to get a better job, or, maybe you can utilize the lower interest rates and take out a corporate loan. Sell bumperstickers on the internet or something. 
(That was not sarcastic, I truly hope you get back on your feet)
The point of my story was, if many people contributed a very small amount, it would add up...
Why do you suppose there is a link between corpulence and charity? Who cares if Michael Moore is fat? Rush Limbaugh was a bloated pill-popping gasbag until they vacuumed the fat from his body.
And Karl Rove is a chubby little piggy himself.
Ann Coulter used to "give it away", but now she sells her skanky ass to the highest right-winger bidder.
Scribeboy: All good points, but they don't claim to be 'relating to the common man on welfare' while they are getting fat and happy.
"Dixie: Your name sounds like some sort of reference to the Racist South,..."
Oh fer crissakes -= ROFLMAO
Tena: I'm glad SOMEBODY thought that was funny.
I swear, you guys are so uptight sometimes that I bet most of you think I really do believe Dixie is a racist.
No, Virtus, I think you are very unintentionally funny sometimes.
That was just plain dumb.
Gryn: I have to go to work in about 15 minutes (might check forums from there if I can though [evening shift is pretty dull sometimes]), but if I don't get a chance later:
Thanks for the insightful debate, I added those links you sent me to my "big list of links". I hope you find that generosity link interesting, it's not really scientific (although you could probably get the hard numbers from the philanthropy organization and find some use from that), but I thought it was kind of entertaining to see.
Anyway, talk to you all later.
Tena: Eh, I am a pretty sarcastic person, so alot of times I will overemphasize traditional Democrat/Republican stereotypes because it's funny...alot of times people don't catch on though.
I thought his connecting my screenie to the Racist South was funny since the "debate" he brings to us is that Red states are more generous. I thought he'd make yet another INFERENCE that I'm generous.
Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina--all in the top 10.
there's a fine line between funny and stupid
One of my guests had excess holiday cheer, and puked in the driveway right in front of my house. They could have deposited their contribution in the empty garbage can conveniently located 2 feet away, or in the grass where it wouldn't be quite so obvious, but no, they left a big puddle right in the middle of the concrete, in a spot where I have to walk around it to get into my car. Now I have to wait for temperatures to rise enough for it to thaw out so I can wash it away.
For Christmas, my boyo got me the Seabiscuit DVD, a bag of Hershey's dark chocolate kisses, and a "political" book he'd asked his dad (my ex) to choose.
It was by that pal of Virtus: Glenn Beck's The Real America. (I'll bet there's no curiosity about the divorce now.) It is...unspeakable.
But on page 70, Glenn describes Peter O'Toole playing the "hopeless drunk, an Errol Flynn character" in My Favorite Year when he intends to shimmy down a fire hose because he feels he's been trained to climb mountains by Niblet, his Himalayan guide. When Mel Brooks tells him "That was a movie--this is real life," Peter responds "What is the difference?" It's Beck's big finish in an explanation of why Hollywood celebrities don't understand real stuff.
It was my only laugh in the book, but I don't think Glenn Beck intended me to filter it through George Bush.
To get back from OT land: I hit the tip jar with quite a bit more than Beck will get from the $11.95 my son paid for that /shudder/ book.
i like jim.
what i don't like is so many dem dollars going to media buys, and so little going to dem activists.
another frantic "bat" for ... trippi dust, and everywhere i look i see dems going sub-paycheck-2-paycheck. my city committee chair, my former city committee chair, my city committee vice-chair, ... it is a pretty big list of people i can hit with a shoe.
i'm not giving a sodding cent to any campaign's air war. if there's no walking-around money to spread on dems working either the issues or the voters, its just coke vs pepsi. marketing.
jim should be on staff with a campaign making 500/wk, working deleware or maryland, or working issues or just fundraising.
shit. even dean's campaign.
there's a fine line between funny and stupid.
Strange you sould mention that - I'm watching "Hot Shots, Part Deux" right now...
There's a small problem with Virtus' point. First, he uses the vague descriptor "Upper Class" instead of the specific data on income, which completely contradicts his outlying point. Second, the state giving data, as Atrios points out, assumes that partisan affiliation has something to do with charitable giving, based on data that doesn't serve to correlate either unless you simply decide that it does. Third, if wealthy people are saying that they themselves should pay more taxes, and you're apparently waging the incoherent class warfare of the regular Republican working man against the rich Democratic elite, where the rich Democratic elitle wants to punish the working man with a progressive tax system where they themselves pay a higher tax rate than the working man, and voluntarily give up their own tax cuts to reduce the tax burden on you...you must have some built up resentment, bud.
I'd also point out that the given survey appears to ignore volunteerism.
Well, I agree with one thing Mr. Beck says:
Terror is a tool used by those seeking power to keep the masses in need of an answer.
Talk about nailing the Unelected Fraud's MO!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I've done my small part to help out Jim Capozzola.
Wasn't that the original point Atrios was making?
jesse: You aren't disproving my point at all...I told him gryn that the survey he presented of the 2000 Election was flawed and I listed several reasons why. Such as them having an "Upper Class" category showing an overwhelming voter choice for Gore, and a >100K category that showed the oppposite. CNN is a fairly biased news source and so I would take all their polls with a grain of salt.
As for mine, I think you are looking to deeply into it, as I explained earlier, it was not done to show a party affiliation. Someone just color coded it AFTER the Philanthropic website did a statistical analysis on how much total a state contributed to charity vs. how much total the state's populace was worth. And as I said when I posted it, color coding a state based on who it gave it's electoral votes to in 2000 is by no means a definitive survey.
The points you made where valid...but already covered.
Such as them having an "Upper Class" category showing an overwhelming voter choice for Gore, and a >100K category that showed the oppposite. CNN is a fairly biased news source and so I would take all their polls with a grain of salt.
The problem is, "Upper Class" is virtually meaningless as a descriptor, particularly when CNN lets the poll-taker choose where they fit, which you seem to be completely ignoring (unsurprisingly). No standards are given to discern "upper-middle" from "upper", which makes that question *pointless*.
And you didn't even bother to read what I was actually saying about the state poll, instead going off on this bizarre, incoherent tangent. YOu say it's not a "definitive survey"...and then used it as a definitive survey.
This is among your weakest attempts ever.
The absolute best gift Jim could get in 2004 would be a job, so he could stay in Philly. Surely one of your 40,000 readers is in a position to help out here, Atrios!
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
