Nope.

A link would be fine.

Unfortunately for me, my county (Blair, PA) is a very DEEP shade of red.

It also tells you that they really like guns, and are only concerned about being able to control an unarmed population to an even greater degree if the government had effective firepower, but not the civilian population. But that's for another thread.

Quote:

Conservatives are not. We prefer to take care of our charitible giving on a far more local, or personal level. We are comfortable doing that, and tend to belong to organizations that provide a means through which to donate. Churches, lodges, civic groups, etc., all have a history of giving in their communities. They attract a conservative membership as a rule, so that membership tends to get better exposure to alternative means for giving outside of those mandated by government. They see it can be done in the absence of government involvement, and that insight leads them to question government involvement in many things best left to the private sector. So in the end, Supe is right. We have gone over this before; both sides want the same thing. The dissagreement starts in how to achieve it. Liberals want government to do it all; conservatives want government to stay out of it. In my own opinion, as a conservative, I believe government has long since gotten too big. I vote conservative in the hopes of electing people that will agree with me on that, and work to reduce the size of government. It hasn't worked. Ever since the early promise of Gingrich's little conservative coup, and now especially through one and a half terms of "conservatives" having unchallenged power, government has in fact been growing. At a record pace. Our elected conservative leaders have ignored our mandate and have failed us misserably. Now where do I (we) turn? I find the liberal platform on moral and social issue to be unnacceptable. Couple that with a promise to expand government at an even faster rate than the conservatives, and where am I to turn? Government is far too intrusive as it is. How many of us are truly comfortable with its size today? There is not an aspect of my life it does not touch. That is inherently wrong. I have been led down the garden path, believing conservative leadership would work to correct that. They quite obviously will not, so now what? I don't like either side anymore.

You can look into the Libertarian Party, but I'm hesitant to tell you that they're the be all and end all of political groups. If, as has happened in the past, too many of today's Republicans and Democrats join the party and become activists within it, it might adopt a more compromising position than it has so far. There are indications that this is already happening.

The other option is to simply stop participating in the electoral process, something I'm considering. The reason's are clear; electing R's or D's changes little, if anything, but the vote counts lend credence to the election, allowing specious claims of mandates to do "things". Since the third largest party, the Libertarian Party, is drifting towards the other two, that's becoming less and less viable for me.

Something to ponder. I've been doing research on the so-called do nothing presidents; the ones you can't remember the names of, to see just what they did or more importantly, what they did not do, that makes them so obscure. What I'm finding, so far, is that these men were inevitably the most Constitutional presidents, and either didn't expand government at all, or in some very special cases, shrank it down.

It seems to me that these are the presidential ideals that ought to be shouted from the rooftops today.

Pretty picture Techie, my eyes love it.:)

+1 Jeff Higgins. That's exactly how I fee

Hear hear; I'll second that. The problem is, they all want to leave some kind of mark; a legacy for which they will be remembered. They are competing for a place in the history books. None of them want to wind up in the ranks of those we can't remember.

I would think that in the long run, a modern-day President (or Representative, Senator; whatever) that could lead the way to getting big gubmint out of our daily lives would go down in history as a hero. I just can't see a major party candidate ever doing that.

I have looked into the Libertarian Party, and find myself agreeing with their platform. Unfortunately, I (and I'm sure many others) have this Perot-esque fear of voting outside of the big two. It is a very real dilema. The two major parties have a stranglehold on American politics, and a very well engineered one at that. I wonder just how far they will have to push the American people before they, en masse, abandon them. I'm afraid public apathy runs way too deep for that to happen any time soon.

You guys know me as a sweet, open-minded old fellow who avoids controversy at all times but I have to say in this case that statements like this are 100% ASININE. They're fun to say, and simple to believe, if you can maintain the colossal ignorance necessary to actually believe it.

Sure, I accept that welfare has caused some dependency and laziness. Given. You're not brilliant just because you notice this.

But you are certainly dismissed from meaningful public policy discussions if you can suggest with a straight face that we not provide 'welfare.' First of all, if we did eliminate welfare, you would need to quadruple the number of cops on the street.

I'm not even going to go further into this explanation. You either understand what I just said, or you probably never will.

Mercifully, in my experience, even the most conservative but intelligent people I discuss these matters with agree that we have some responsibility to take care of the dregs among us. Even if it has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with selfishness.....we would still need to address those peoples' situations.

Again, some folks' view of public policy seems to be so pathetically simple and incomplete that I essentially dismiss them from the meaningful part of my dicussions with the rest of you. But......I'm sure it's quite fun for them. Ignorance is indeed bliss. And hate. I'd guess you guys enjoy radio talk (hate) shows.

Wow Supe, way to be dismissive AND holier-than-thou...

You'd think, reading your post, that the world didn't come into being until FDR and LBG decided to "take care of the less fortunate". What did we do for the thousands of years before them? Oh yeah, you didn't work, you didn't eat.

Please, no mas.

Liberalism has caused gang warfare to be what it is today; the concept of prohibition came out of the liberal/progressive movements of the 19th century and are perpetrated in the War on (some) Drugs today. It's the height of irony that liberals claim to oppose today that which they're responsible for from yesterday. And, you have to take full responsibilty for the total disintergration of the black family in America today; 83% of black children being born in two parent families in 1900, and only 25% (or less) being so today.

Liberals have so much to atone for in America, it'd take a century to accomplish if you all started today.

So please, no more talk of liberals saving America, you've done enough damage already.

First off, that map is absolute nonsense, no source listed, no way it is remotely accurate, if it is trying to represent that there are 4 counties West of Nevada that are conservative.

That said, I think it is pretty ironic that the bulk of voluntary charitable giving is done by conservatives, and the bulk of the involuntary charitable legislation is initiated by liberals. If the entire country goes liberal for 10 years, as is hoped for by someone who posted, the world economy will collapse right along with the US

The way I see it, I should not be made financially responsible for other people unless I am allowed to directly influence their actions.

It's kinda like when my father used to say to me: "You live under my roof, you follow my rules."

Yeah, let's blame it on the liberals. After all they are the ones who engage in deficit spending.

Oh wait a minute. I guess it's a brute fact that the exact opposite is true.

Well, at least we can track prosperity and associate it with conservative as opposed to liberal administrations. Oops. I guess that's exactly the opposite of the facts also.

Well, at least the conservative view is REALLY REALLY SIMPLE AND EMOTIONAL. Yes, that one sticks.

Most of the problems in America today are the responsibility of liberals; both in the Republican and Democrat parties.

The Republicans were the first socialist oriented party; then Wilson led the Democrats in what I suppose you'd have to call a race to see if the Democrats could outdo the Republicans in socialist programs; while the Republicans had the fantastically good president, Calvin Coolidge. Then Democrat light, Herbert Hoover came to power; screwing things up with one liberal policy after another. He of course, like every other president, pales into insignificance when the monumentally awful Franklin Roosevelt is considered.

Any evidence for this?

Democrats have become the secular party and Republicans are the religious party- taken from - The political Econony of Beliefs April 05

In 2003, the journal 'Policy Review' compared the giving habits of religious and secular Americans.

It found that 91% of religious people – defined as ‘attend church weekly’ — donate money to charities, as compared to 66% of secularists.

Religious people are also more likely to volunteer their time, 67% of religious to 44% secularist.

What makes me think that the secularist definition of "charity" is a little more liberal politically than actually effective in helping the needy? Something tells me if you tightened the survey to disclude politically motivated charity, you would see the numbers shift even further in the direction of Conservatives.

I believe you'll find that evidence points to the opposite. Charts you can find here

http://nccsdataweb.urban.org/FAQ/index.php?category=44#680

...seem to indicate that the greatest average contributions to charity come from the blue states.

a higher percentage *say* they do, but if in fact they do, dollars to donuts the amounts are lower. The give a buck on sunday at church...but they make it up in volume :p

That's if they say the go to church. Many more say they do... than actually do.

This is a flimsy bit of logic.

To claim that the charitable giving rates of "secular vs religious" populations equates to the charitable giving rates of "Democrats vs Republicans" is unsupported. Secular does not in fact equal Democrat, nor does religious equal Republican.

Only 10% of voters in the 2004 elections described themselves as "secular". By your logic Democrats must be only 10% of voters. Yet we know that's not true. There are religious Democrats, and many of them, which is what makes your logic break down.

My family is an example. We are Democrats, we give on average $3000/yr, and we volunteer about 200 hours/yr (admittedly this is my wife teaching Sunday school, but I think it still counts).