Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (324171)	2/2/2007 3:10:08 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1578048

And even if American mostly couldn't succeed that would only mean that conservatives' opinions where factually wrong (fortunately they are not) not that they are uncaring. Again that's not what I said... You've said it multiple times, and implied it countless times, both about me, about conservatives, and about supporters of free markets. First of all, I don't think any of you care all that much about what happens to the poor. I have never tried to hide my opinion on that subject from you. However, that was not my point in the current exchange of posts. What I said to you was your claim that conservatives are not concerned with inequalities because there any number of private opportunities that would allow the poor to advance is some of the biggest crock of BS I've heard since Bush said the Iraqis would greet us with open arms. And of course, the right discounts the importance of inequality.......that conveniently allows it to overlook the inequalities that exist in this society. As for these private opportunities you seem to think abound in this society, they remain private and unavailable to most people except those of a certain class. People like Condi Rice are the rare exception, not the rule in this country.......and it didn't hurt that her parents were teachers. The fact that you would even make a statement like and presumbably believe it indicates how little an understanding you have the poor in this country. they are not willing to find out that the data does not support their premise about poverty in the US. No point in "finding out" something that is false. The data does support the premise. I have never seen this data when I have been investigating poverty in the US. It must be in special archives only available to conservatives. "Conservatives where very compassionate in response to Katrina (and to other natural disasters) and contributed enormous amounts of money and effort to help alleviate the problems." So you say...........I'll have to take your word on it since there are not statitistics that make it clear. "SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous. The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income. In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals. The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24. When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice." Where does he present credible data to support his position?