The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 

View Poll Results: Who are you voting for? (answers kept private)

Voters
417. You may not vote on this poll
  • Barack Obama

    259 62.11%
  • Mitt Romney

    130 31.18%
  • Other

    28 6.71%
Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 191
  1. #121
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    And whence does your evidence come? I know I've given plenty of blood, money, time without documenting it or even inquiring whether or not it would be considered "charitable," let alone sharing my political leanings with anyone. Most people I know do the same. Are there people out their taking polls on these things that we don't know about or something?

    Hence, I have a hard time imagining where your sources got their numbers-- maybe from tax returns, on which conservatives might be more likely than liberals to pursue and claim every possible deduction?

    So, that last paragraph you are doing the same you are accusing others from doing, assuming big.



  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sunny59 View Post
    UN laws on the US? Buy guns? paranoid much?

    Sorry, not gonna happen.
    With Obama in the white house, yes I am paranoid. Sure hope you are right. We've lost enough rights already...like the right to make our own health care choices.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...t-of-the-deal/


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep. 7, 2009
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    15,445

    Default

    Daydream Believer, are you going to turn down Medicare?
    "We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals." ~Immanuel Kant



  4. #124
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2003
    Location
    Hurdle Mills, NC
    Posts
    4,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    So, that last paragraph you are doing the same you are accusing others from doing, assuming big.
    Nope-- just asking a question. Hence the question mark.



  5. #125
    Join Date
    Jan. 26, 2010
    Posts
    4,955

    Default

    Wow. I am stunned. People are scare mongering about buying guns to get ready for Armagedden? Seriously? Obama has done nothing to get rid of gun rights.

    But, but, you're OK with the R's wasting money and time putting up 92 bills in the last 4 years to ban abortion and control a woman's body? You're REALLY more concerned with guns than that?

    You sound like my nasty, crazy, greedy, arrogant step-father who was in the military 30 years and has been living off of the government for the last 40 years, yet wants to make sure he takes away rights from everyone else, and he wants his gun back because he's afraid of the "riots" if Obama loses.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2006
    Location
    wyoming
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    You really can't see the very important ideological differences there, if to mandate by law all give, more and more, for the government to use and yes, misuse that money, or above that, also give voluntarily thru charities and other venues out there where each individual sees a need they want and can help?
    I didn't say there weren't ideological differences. I said "Different strokes..." That would imply I did see ideological differences.

    Democracy is technically control of the fewer by the majority. So it goes. Best system out there, imo. Not perfect, of course, especially if you are of the fewer.

    If the folks in the blue states want to run their charity through the government, their business. Yes, governments are inefficient and often crooked. Ditto many/most charities, if you read the papers. Red staters give most of their charity to their churches, which have their own agendas. Not much in this world is perfect!

    BTW, I found an interesting study that indicates blue states are more generous with their charitable contributions than red states, once factors such as income reduced by taxes and equalized by cost of living is factored in.

    http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/...ingindices.pdf

    Forbes published an article about this, link below. But here's an excerpt that's simplifies the study a bit:

    "The Generosity Index is inherently biased against high-income states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. We think our methodology is a lot fairer," commented Schervish. In fact, using his methodology Massachusetts leaps from 44th place on the Generosity Index to 11th on the Boston Foundation's list.

    What they did was measure the share of total charitable contributions donated by the residents of each state and compare it to the share of income earned by residents of the same state. "Income can be calculated in terms of gross income, net of taxes, adjusted for differences in the cost of living in different states. In this way, all the residents of a state are captured the same way for each calculation, and there is no intrinsic bias against high- or low-income states. As the Generosity Index purports but fails to do, this formula compares the capacity of state residents to give against their actual pattern of giving."

    http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/mos...25home_ls.html

    Damn statistics.

    Liz



  7. #127
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fish View Post
    Nope-- just asking a question. Hence the question mark.

    Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic.

    I have heard those numbers before, but don't know if they were taken out of context to mean what those repeating them wanted, or if they were straightforward as indicated.



  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2007
    Location
    TX
    Posts
    38,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairiewind2 View Post
    I didn't say there weren't ideological differences. I said "Different strokes..." That would imply I did see ideological differences.

    Democracy is technically control of the fewer by the majority. So it goes. Best system out there, imo. Not perfect, of course, especially if you are of the fewer.

    If the folks in the blue states want to run their charity through the government, their business. Yes, governments are inefficient and often crooked. Ditto many/most charities, if you read the papers. Red staters give most of their charity to their churches, which have their own agendas. Not much in this world is perfect!

    BTW, I found an interesting study that indicates blue states are more generous with their charitable contributions than red states, once factors such as income reduced by taxes and equalized by cost of living is factored in.

    http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/...ingindices.pdf

    Forbes published an article about this, link below. But here's an excerpt that's simplifies the study a bit:

    "The Generosity Index is inherently biased against high-income states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. We think our methodology is a lot fairer," commented Schervish. In fact, using his methodology Massachusetts leaps from 44th place on the Generosity Index to 11th on the Boston Foundation's list.

    What they did was measure the share of total charitable contributions donated by the residents of each state and compare it to the share of income earned by residents of the same state. "Income can be calculated in terms of gross income, net of taxes, adjusted for differences in the cost of living in different states. In this way, all the residents of a state are captured the same way for each calculation, and there is no intrinsic bias against high- or low-income states. As the Generosity Index purports but fails to do, this formula compares the capacity of state residents to give against their actual pattern of giving."

    http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/mos...25home_ls.html

    Damn statistics.

    Liz
    Hmm, I thought we were a republic, not a democracy.

    Do you really think that the republicans in those states don't have to pay the same as the democrats that live in the same states?

    My understanding is that the republicans donate OVER what taxes demand of all, more than democrats.
    Not that I know, is what I though the data was showing.



  9. #129
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Bluey, yes it's money they've given to charities, not what the government uses your taxes for. But let's not try and obfuscate shall we?

    The only reason I even brought this out was in response to the statement that Republicans HATE everyone! DUH. Yeah, they hate so much that they willingly give away more of their money, by a higher percentage than the Democrats. Mean, greedy, selfish old Republicans. Imagine that.



  10. #130
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairiewind2 View Post
    I didn't say there weren't ideological differences. I said "Different strokes..." That would imply I did see ideological differences.

    Democracy is technically control of the fewer by the majority. So it goes. Best system out there, imo. Not perfect, of course, especially if you are of the fewer.

    If the folks in the blue states want to run their charity through the government, their business. Yes, governments are inefficient and often crooked. Ditto many/most charities, if you read the papers. Red staters give most of their charity to their churches, which have their own agendas. Not much in this world is perfect!

    BTW, I found an interesting study that indicates blue states are more generous with their charitable contributions than red states, once factors such as income reduced by taxes and equalized by cost of living is factored in.

    http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/...ingindices.pdf

    Forbes published an article about this, link below. But here's an excerpt that's simplifies the study a bit:

    "The Generosity Index is inherently biased against high-income states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. We think our methodology is a lot fairer," commented Schervish. In fact, using his methodology Massachusetts leaps from 44th place on the Generosity Index to 11th on the Boston Foundation's list.

    What they did was measure the share of total charitable contributions donated by the residents of each state and compare it to the share of income earned by residents of the same state. "Income can be calculated in terms of gross income, net of taxes, adjusted for differences in the cost of living in different states. In this way, all the residents of a state are captured the same way for each calculation, and there is no intrinsic bias against high- or low-income states. As the Generosity Index purports but fails to do, this formula compares the capacity of state residents to give against their actual pattern of giving."

    http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/23/mos...25home_ls.html

    Damn statistics.

    Liz
    Damn statistics. Yeah, too funny. They had to come up with a whole new way to calculate than that used by everyone else.



  11. #131
    Join Date
    Oct. 4, 2003
    Location
    Hurdle Mills, NC
    Posts
    4,089

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Oh, I thought you were being sarcastic.

    I have heard those numbers before, but don't know if they were taken out of context to mean what those repeating them wanted, or if they were straightforward as indicated.
    No, I was not being sarcastic-- and the question remains: where do these numbers come from, because I really haven't noticed anyone tracking either what I give to whom or how much I volunteer, or connecting either to my political affiliations???

    Unless you can answer this question, it does seem to me that somebody's drawing sweeping conclusions from highly questionable (to put it mildly) data.
    Last edited by fish; Nov. 3, 2012 at 08:43 PM.



  12. #132
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2006
    Location
    wyoming
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluey View Post
    Hmm, I thought we were a republic, not a democracy.

    Do you really think that the republicans in those states don't have to pay the same as the democrats that live in the same states?

    My understanding is that the republicans donate OVER what taxes demand of all, more than democrats.
    Not that I know, is what I though the data was showing.
    I think the original study relied on by conservatives was done state by state, not by individual. So I'm not sure what your second and third paragraphs are in reference to.

    The study I linked was also done by state but took some important things into consideration.

    If you read the study, you'd see that it was for charitable giving over and above taxes. IOW, it was personal charitable giving. What the study did was take taxes in all states into account - deduct them from income. Then it also took into account the cost of living for areas and equalized that. At that point, everyone's bottom line was equal. Nobody could argue about those two issues because they were nullified.

    Then the study looked at charitable giving compared to resulting income and found that blue states were at least as high - and in some cases higher - than red states in charitable giving.

    Liz



  13. #133
    Join Date
    Aug. 20, 2006
    Location
    wyoming
    Posts
    461

    Default

    Minnie - I do agree that stats can be made to say what you want them to say. On the whole, I don't like 'em. But the info that conservatives have used on this charitable giving thing was mostly extrapolated from one or two studies and then repeated endlessly. The study I referenced has good points to it because it tries to weed out cost of living differences as well as differences in taxation rates in order to arrive at just what percentage of bottom-line, spendable income people (by state) donate to charity.

    It's still just a damn statistic though.

    Liz



  14. #134
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2003
    Posts
    1,888

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prairiewind2 View Post
    Minnie - I do agree that stats can be made to say what you want them to say. On the whole, I don't like 'em. But the info that conservatives have used on this charitable giving thing was mostly extrapolated from one or two studies and then repeated endlessly. The study I referenced has good points to it because it tries to weed out cost of living differences as well as differences in taxation rates in order to arrive at just what percentage of bottom-line, spendable income people (by state) donate to charity.

    It's still just a damn statistic though.

    Liz

    If I remember correctly, most conservative/red state giving is to churches, not charities, so a good portion of that money is used to fund the church rather than helping folks. Not that churches don't help people, but off the top of all that giving you have salaries, mortgage, utilities, etc before you even get to anything that is unrelated to the church and helps out the community.

    On a side note, I also know quite a lot of liberal types who, like myself, refuse to take a tax deduction for any charitable giving -- depending on study methodology, people like me don't show up. Of course, that is anecdotal and worth exactly what you paid for it in terms of explaining anything.
    According to the Mayan calendar, the world will not end this week. Please plan your life accordingly.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2002
    Location
    Suffolk, VA
    Posts
    16,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    Wow. I am stunned. People are scare mongering about buying guns to get ready for Armagedden? Seriously? Obama has done nothing to get rid of gun rights.

    But, but, you're OK with the R's wasting money and time putting up 92 bills in the last 4 years to ban abortion and control a woman's body? You're REALLY more concerned with guns than that?

    You sound like my nasty, crazy, greedy, arrogant step-father who was in the military 30 years and has been living off of the government for the last 40 years, yet wants to make sure he takes away rights from everyone else, and he wants his gun back because he's afraid of the "riots" if Obama loses.
    I'm stunned at the unbelievable nasty hateful BS spewing from your keyboard. I posted an article to show that a UN arms control treaty is a reality and not fiction in reply to another poster, and I get a reaction like that from you. Paranoid much? Seriously you need to step away from the keyboard and take your medication.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beentheredonethat View Post
    But, but, you're OK with the R's wasting money and time putting up 92 bills in the last 4 years to ban abortion and control a woman's body?
    proof? or more of you just spewing nonsense?


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Feb. 28, 2001
    Posts
    15,232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by loshad View Post
    If I remember correctly, most conservative/red state giving is to churches, not charities, so a good portion of that money is used to fund the church rather than helping folks. Not that churches don't help people, but off the top of all that giving you have salaries, mortgage, utilities, etc before you even get to anything that is unrelated to the church and helps out the community.
    You are sadly misinformed, my friend


    2 members found this post helpful.

  18. #138
    Join Date
    May. 4, 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,274

    Default

    Beentheredonethat, the riot threats (and death threats) are a reality. Not surprised the lame stream media isn't reporting it much, but the threats are very real.

    Loved Maher's comment about black people "coming to get" Romney voters. Yeah, he was probably joking. But it was a disgusting, tasteless comment. Can you IMAGINE if a republican said that? But, OK for Maher.

    O is starting to make Carter look good.
    Sorry to see xtranormal is gone
    For funnies, search youtube for horseyninjawarrior!

    Www.caringbridge.org/visit/mysecretgarden


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Oct. 12, 2005
    Location
    Va
    Posts
    2,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by alittlegray View Post
    Beentheredonethat, the riot threats (and death threats) are a reality. Not surprised the lame stream media isn't reporting it much, but the threats are very real.

    Loved Maher's comment about black people "coming to get" Romney voters. Yeah, he was probably joking. But it was a disgusting, tasteless comment. Can you IMAGINE if a republican said that? But, OK for Maher.

    O is starting to make Carter look good.
    Not to mention that comments like that from people like him can help to incite even more crazies to go out and riot. Where is Obama telling these people to calm down? He must know of all the threats of riots and threats against Romney on twitter and other forums. Why isn't he publicly denouncing this kind of talk? Where's his "more civil discourse now? Oh yeah, he wants "revenge votes". Another little sound bite where he went off his talking points. For the "revenge" word to come out so effortlessly and spontaneously must be already in his head.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    May. 4, 2008
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,274

    Default

    Yeah, loved his "revenge" comment.
    Sorry to see xtranormal is gone
    For funnies, search youtube for horseyninjawarrior!

    Www.caringbridge.org/visit/mysecretgarden



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: Jun. 28, 2012, 09:41 AM
  2. Please vote for us!
    By akhunterrider in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Oct. 18, 2011, 05:31 PM
  3. Vote for WEG!
    By caryledee in forum Off Course
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug. 10, 2011, 08:46 AM
  4. Vote for me!!
    By farmgirl88 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb. 18, 2010, 06:57 PM
  5. VOTE!
    By Louise in forum Favorites
    Replies: 170
    Last Post: Nov. 12, 2000, 03:06 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness