Ed: “Also volunteering. Time is money. But that’s too simplistic. You’re also THERE.”

Exactly. If you are so rich that you don’t need to work, your entire life can be donated to ‘charity.’ Although holding social events for charity does help raise money, I bet a lot of times the people attending care more about the social event and less about the charity.

I’m one donation from my seventh gallon.

J.

Mister ed states “Uh-oh:
Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute.”

Mister ed in that statement ‘replies to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject’.

I think what he did pretty well fits the above definition.

Also volunteering. Time is money. But that’s too simplistic. You’re also THERE.

Someone here doesn’t know the definition of Ad Hominem.

Dennis, you don’t strike me as the religious type– conservative or liberal — so I seriously doubt your charitable donations are anything to write home about. Quoting from hack demagogues doesn’t help your case. Want the Republicans to be relevant? Wait a while, do something useful with your life in the meantime, and demand that the Republicans start believing in something relevant, useful, and moral– three things of which they’ve been lacking.

Percent wise you probably won’t be able to either, because a much higher percentage of your income goes to things like food and shelter.

Percent of disposable income would be the best measure. Don’t know where you can get there. Or if you can get that.

Surprisingly, Mr. Brooks’ 2006 book doesn’t even mention the Gallup poll he says was conducted in May, 2008.

Is that how Gallup is publishing their results these days? Man, I heard times were tough!

‘Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism’

You’ll find all the supporting statistical documentation you need.

You can probably get it at your local library, too, if you want to be a liberal hero like Jessica Alba and not admit you’d ever pay one penny for a conservative author’s book.

I didn’t ignore everything else you wrote. I didn’t ignore that you accused conservatives of a ‘Fuck the poor’ mindset. I offered a recent study with statistical information gleaned from a period of years and over several different studies from different organizations, that that was not the case at all. You termed it ‘wildly misleading’, without supporting that accusation. You nitpick about the article not providing that statistical information you’d like to see doesn’t even come close to justifying an accusation of ‘wildly misleading’.

Propaganda is as propaganda does.

Love how you ignore everything else I wrote, genius.

Uh oh-
“Mister ed is a recent graduate of the Jessica Alba School of ad hominem attacks.”

That explains why he’d make an accusation without bothering to explain on what basis he makes that accusation.

Uh-oh:
“Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute.”

That explains why he left so much out of his wildly misleading piece.

Anyone so easily misled would also believe that massively regressive tax cuts help Teh Poor, opposing SCHIP likewise, or that we had to invade Iraq. Or that income inequality didn’t skyrocket under the Cheney Administration; that median income didn’t slightly decrease while the top 1% went way, way up.

And it’s couched in racist, Lee Atwater-style “Welfare Queen” bullshit. Love bunch, those Republicans are.
–Mister ed

Conservatives Have Answered Obama’s Call

Conservatives don’t think ‘Fuck the poor’, ed. Whether they are secular or religious, rich or poor, good economy or bad; they help the poor.

Liberals…not as much.