Occupy Wall Street. Police vs people in NY.

Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Do you have evidence of this?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...

The actual quote is past the paywall, unfortunately, but here's a nice snippet from it:

As a recent study in the social sciences shows, if energy use in a household is monitored so that you can watch yourself saving money every month by using less, self-identified conservatives will actually use and spend more, apparently as a way of showing their scorn for liberal pieties.

My anecdotal experience is that this is true. Applying this same logic to being charitable, it follows that conservatives would be less likely to be charitable as a "f*ck you" to the government wanting them to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

WiredAsylum wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

What point are you trying to make behind the snark? That the Bible doesn't talk about helping your fellow man without the need of the government forcing you? OR are you saying that liberals don't mind being charitable with other peoples money? I get confused.

Ulairi wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

What point are you trying to make behind the snark? That the Bible doesn't talk about helping your fellow man without the need of the government forcing you? OR are you saying that liberals don't mind being charitable with other peoples money? I get confused.

I believe it's a reference to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

What point are you trying to make behind the snark? That the Bible doesn't talk about helping your fellow man without the need of the government forcing you? OR are you saying that liberals don't mind being charitable with other peoples money? I get confused.

I believe it's a reference to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

"In case some one of your brothers becomes poor among you in one of your cities, in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not harden your heart or be closefisted toward your poor brother. For you should generously open your hand to him and by all means lend him on pledge as much as he needs, which he is in want of... You should by all means give to him, and your heart should not be stingy in your giving to him, because on this account Jehovah your God will bless you in every deed of yours and in every undertaking of yours. For someone poor will never cease to be in the midst of the land. That is why I am commanding you, saying, 'You should generously open up your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land."

Ulairi wrote:
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

I obviously haven't read the book but does that take into account the incomes of the contributors? If you're talking pure dollars then all it takes is a couple rich people on either side to completely skew the statistics. If it measures everything in percentage of income then that's valid but those quotes appear to me more about raw dollars which is statistically irrelevant to the point the book is trying to make.

If folks want to have a pissing contest about who's more charitable, and what that implies about various people's theological or political inclinations, could it go to a different thread?

Ulairi wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

What point are you trying to make behind the snark? That the Bible doesn't talk about helping your fellow man without the need of the government forcing you? OR are you saying that liberals don't mind being charitable with other peoples money? I get confused.

I believe it's a reference to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

"In case some one of your brothers becomes poor among you in one of your cities, in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not harden your heart or be closefisted toward your poor brother. For you should generously open your hand to him and by all means lend him on pledge as much as he needs, which he is in want of... You should by all means give to him, and your heart should not be stingy in your giving to him, because on this account Jehovah your God will bless you in every deed of yours and in every undertaking of yours. For someone poor will never cease to be in the midst of the land. That is why I am commanding you, saying, 'You should generously open up your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land."

Where is the part about not doing it because the government forces you to? Where is the part where you differentiate between different forms of "opening up your hand"?

gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Being a Christian is helping the poor because you want to do good deeds, not because the government forces you to. Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Oh yeah I missed the rider in the gospels. Oh wait just checked my Koine Greek new testament, nope not in there there is something about taxes and governments though.

What point are you trying to make behind the snark? That the Bible doesn't talk about helping your fellow man without the need of the government forcing you? OR are you saying that liberals don't mind being charitable with other peoples money? I get confused.

I believe it's a reference to "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's"

"In case some one of your brothers becomes poor among you in one of your cities, in your land that Jehovah your God is giving you, you must not harden your heart or be closefisted toward your poor brother. For you should generously open your hand to him and by all means lend him on pledge as much as he needs, which he is in want of... You should by all means give to him, and your heart should not be stingy in your giving to him, because on this account Jehovah your God will bless you in every deed of yours and in every undertaking of yours. For someone poor will never cease to be in the midst of the land. That is why I am commanding you, saying, 'You should generously open up your hand to your afflicted and poor brother in your land."

Where is the part about not doing it because the government forces you to? Where is the part where you differentiate between different forms of "opening up your hand"?

Silly me. I didn't know that when Jesus talks about helping your fellow man, he meant only through the guise of the social welfare state. I'll be sure to let Catholic Charities close up shop because the governments should be doing everything. And to give you a clue, "Render unto Caesar" was about paying taxes not the social welfare state but nice try.

gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:
Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

I obviously haven't read the book but does that take into account the incomes of the contributors? If you're talking pure dollars then all it takes is a couple rich people on either side to completely skew the statistics. If it measures everything in percentage of income then that's valid but those quotes appear to me more about raw dollars which is statistically irrelevant to the point the book is trying to make.

Yes. It does.

And I'll back out of this thread. And to help get you guys started on the right foot:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

ffs, Ulairi. *sigh*

Ulairi wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Right wing christians tend to be much more charitable than others.

Do you have evidence of this?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...

The actual quote is past the paywall, unfortunately, but here's a nice snippet from it:

As a recent study in the social sciences shows, if energy use in a household is monitored so that you can watch yourself saving money every month by using less, self-identified conservatives will actually use and spend more, apparently as a way of showing their scorn for liberal pieties.

My anecdotal experience is that this is true. Applying this same logic to being charitable, it follows that conservatives would be less likely to be charitable as a "f*ck you" to the government wanting them to be.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/op...

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

We've already gone over this in another thread. Conservatives give slightly more to charity than liberals. When you look at where those donations go, the vast majority goes to churches where they are used to support church operations not to programs to aid the poor and needy.

Regardless of how much either gives total charitable giving comes no where close to matching what the government provides for the poor.

Ulairi wrote:

Silly me. I didn't know that when Jesus talks about helping your fellow man, he meant only through the guise of the social welfare state. I'll be sure to let Catholic Charities close up shop because the governments should be doing everything. And to give you a clue, "Render unto Caesar" was about paying taxes not the social welfare state but nice try.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was not that you shouldn't help your fellow man and should only do so through government programs. It's asking the question "Why resist helping people through the government in addition to in your own life?" Why is it Christian to help people one way but a bad thing to do it another? Did Jesus really take issue with the concept of a welfare state?

At this point we're probably not getting anywhere though. If you want to continue it we can take it to another thread.

Edit: In response to your other post: Good. That sounds legit enough for me then. Point taken.

Edit 2: I meant good that the book uses proper statistical methods, not that you're backing out of this thread.

Ulairi wrote:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

That does a disservice to the folks having an honest conversation in this thread.

Ulairi wrote:

Silly me. I didn't know that when Jesus talks about helping your fellow man, he meant only through the guise of the social welfare state. I'll be sure to let Catholic Charities close up shop because the governments should be doing everything. And to give you a clue, "Render unto Caesar" was about paying taxes not the social welfare state but nice try.

No my point is simply if they want to argue about taxes and economics do not invoke Christianity in one breath and then use that logic to bash any formal giving to the needy government mandated or not. It makes them look dumb, if they want to argue economics and taxes but at same time invoke your faith, talk waste, needless programs, and misuse of appropriations. Do not argue that capitalism is inherently Christian.

The Render unto Caesar was not about taxes, when you take it in context. It is being a lazy theologian, to end that study at Jesus says pay taxes. It was the pharisees and Sadducees trying to get him in a "Gotchya" moment, and Christs general dismissal of those seeking him with impure motives. During His ministry those who sought him out looking for the law got the law, but those that were ready to hear his gospel got those responses.

Notice the word THEY not YOU.

WiredAsylum wrote:

When I have time, I am going to get to the bottom of who this group is, because it would amaze me if they actually are linked to drivers.

Not saying this is completely wrong, I am just not sure how you could do an open letter about driver conditions and leave out what the American Transportation Research Institute compiled through their annual driver polls as the top 10 issues facing drivers today (link is to a summary you do not want to have to read the entire report, if you do pm me your email address and i can email you a copy of the pdf)

Driver satisfaction is at an all time low for various reasons(source coming cant find my report on this), if they want to protest that issue, they need to be on capital hill not the ports.

After doing more research I do not think this is malicious, in fact I believe they have the best intentions here, they are just misguided with this target.

The authors of the letter give their full names, employers and experience. They are all truck drivers employed by the companies that are mentioned in the letter.

Edit:

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

That does a disservice to the folks having an honest conversation in this thread.

I concur. When you think of those who disagree with you as caricatures you lose the ability to have any sort of meaningful discussion with them.

Kraint wrote:
WiredAsylum wrote:

When I have time, I am going to get to the bottom of who this group is, because it would amaze me if they actually are linked to drivers.

Not saying this is completely wrong, I am just not sure how you could do an open letter about driver conditions and leave out what the American Transportation Research Institute compiled through their annual driver polls as the top 10 issues facing drivers today (link is to a summary you do not want to have to read the entire report, if you do pm me your email address and i can email you a copy of the pdf)

Driver satisfaction is at an all time low for various reasons(source coming cant find my report on this), if they want to protest that issue, they need to be on capital hill not the ports.

After doing more research I do not think this is malicious, in fact I believe they have the best intentions here, they are just misguided with this target.

The authors of the letter give their full names, employers and experience. They are all truck drivers employed by the companies that are mentioned in the letter.

OK perhaps they cover the other issues in another part of their site, if that is the case, I have less issue. I made my bones with this company in carrier relations and am looking to move to the government affairs section should a decent role open up, and I can convince my wife to move to DC. So I am a bit overly passionate when talking about working conditions facing people working in all aspects of the transportation industry.

Ulairi wrote:

And to help get you guys started on the right foot:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

Aw crap, Mattdaddy hacked Ulairi's account!

Kraint wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

That does a disservice to the folks having an honest conversation in this thread.

I concur. When you think of those who disagree with you as caricatures you lose the ability to have any sort of meaningful discussion with them.

I actually wanted to post this but was beaten to it. And in a bit of fairness to Ulairi too, he's not wrong about the difference in how the Tea Party got kicked around as a public whipping boy on the forums here versus the treatment OWS has gotten. Now, granted, there were many legitimate criticisms to leverage against the Tea Party stuff, but the mockery of it got out of hand. Much like Ulairi's mockery of OWS.

Farscry wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

And to help get you guys started on the right foot:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

Aw crap, Mattdaddy hacked Ulairi's account!

Kraint wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ulairi wrote:

Leftist Good! Conservative Bad! OWS Good! Tea Party Bad! Rick Perry Bad!

That does a disservice to the folks having an honest conversation in this thread.

I concur. When you think of those who disagree with you as caricatures you lose the ability to have any sort of meaningful discussion with them.

I actually wanted to post this but was beaten to it. And in a bit of fairness to Ulairi too, he's not wrong about the difference in how the Tea Party got kicked around as a public whipping boy on the forums here versus the treatment OWS has gotten. Now, granted, there were many legitimate criticisms to leverage against the Tea Party stuff, but the mockery of it got out of hand. Much like Ulairi's mockery of OWS.

I actually don't mean to mock OWS. I think the intentions of OWS are noble, just like I thought the tea party's intentions were noble. We do need to get the corruptible influence of corporations out of the public square. I just think that OWS like the tea party lacks the right solutions and brings more anger and divisiveness to the public square. I wish OWS would actually stop protesting and causing a bother for people and actually participate in the political process.

I appreciate the qualifications above, and largely agree. Where I disagree is that I think they actually are working through the political process right now. The freedom of speech is a powerful tool for change, and they are exercising their rights/voices now to bring volume to an issue that desperately needs it. I think the bother that they cause, while certainly troublesome for many, is the only way to get noticed and to keep the struggle alive.

Ulairi wrote:

I actually don't mean to mock OWS. I think the intentions of OWS are noble, just like I thought the tea party's intentions were noble. We do need to get the corruptible influence of corporations out of the public square. I just think that OWS like the tea party lacks the right solutions and brings more anger and divisiveness to the public square. I wish OWS would actually stop protesting and causing a bother for people and actually participate in the political process.

Ah; my apologies for the misunderstanding on my part, but it did seem that you were coming across the opposite. I do agree with your entire statement here, but with the caveat that sadly I think the system is so corrupt that it's stacked against the introduction of a meaningful force of individuals representing either group who could manage to change things from within. But that may simply be my cynicism talking; at this point it's honestly hard for me to tell with myself.

Hey, if you're going to back out of a thread, then back out of it. Don't keep coming back because you can't help yourself. It's a bad habit.

Farscry wrote:

I actually wanted to post this but was beaten to it. And in a bit of fairness to Ulairi too, he's not wrong about the difference in how the Tea Party got kicked around as a public whipping boy on the forums here versus the treatment OWS has gotten. Now, granted, there were many legitimate criticisms to leverage against the Tea Party stuff, but the mockery of it got out of hand. Much like Ulairi's mockery of OWS.

The big difference, to me, is that by the time I noticed the Tea Party, it was already taken over by the Republican party and getting veered far far away from it's cause. I've since heard the history of the Tea Party and understand the early Tea Party had very different ideals/goals than what we see now. It's quite a different animal from OWS, which has gotten to more prominence, faster, without really being steered too much by the Powers That Be yet.

Well, Ulairi thinks we're applying double standards to the Tea Party and to OWS. Are we? He could be right.

I actually just emailed him asking for opinions on the things I post. I try to post both good and bad things but I seriously wonder now if I am being biased in my postings. I would love to hear feedback either way.

Malor wrote:

Well, Ulairi thinks we're applying double standards to the Tea Party and to OWS. Are we? He could be right.

I think he's partly right, honestly. Granted he's frequently mocked the OWS folks as kids with bongo drums, iPhones and no interest in working. So it's hard to take that line of reasoning seriously. But being objective, yes the Tea Party was not given the same fair shake by many people that OWS now is. That's probably a whole other thread, honestly, so I don't know if it's worth getting into why that happened or how it happened. But that it happened seems obvious to me. Identity politics came into play and the next thing you know the message of "tea baggers" (scarequotes used as that was the term being bandied about at the time) was being lost in who they were.

I've said before and I'll say it again, the Tea Party and OWS have a lot in common deep down. If the actual human beings in each group could set aside identity politics long enough to engage in a dialogue they'd probably find they were all frustrated by the bailouts, the intrusion of government into the lives of Americans and the prolonged wars.

DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, Ulairi thinks we're applying double standards to the Tea Party and to OWS. Are we? He could be right.

I think he's partly right, honestly. Granted he's frequently mocked the OWS folks as kids with bongo drums, iPhones and no interest in working. So it's hard to take that line of reasoning seriously. But being objective, yes the Tea Party was not given the same fair shake by many people that OWS now is. That's probably a whole other thread, honestly, so I don't know if it's worth getting into why that happened or how it happened.

I would agree with that (I think I even made note of that when the Tea Party thing was going on, how they weren't getting a fair shake...). I'd also agree it's probably a different thread, but it's good to note our biases to continue in this one.

Saying the Tea Party and OWS have something in common because they were both focused on the intersection of corporate culture and government is like saying Ayn Rand and Karl Marx had something in common because, um...they were both focused on the intersection of corporate culture and government.

Minarchist wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Malor wrote:

Well, Ulairi thinks we're applying double standards to the Tea Party and to OWS. Are we? He could be right.

I think he's partly right, honestly. Granted he's frequently mocked the OWS folks as kids with bongo drums, iPhones and no interest in working. So it's hard to take that line of reasoning seriously. But being objective, yes the Tea Party was not given the same fair shake by many people that OWS now is. That's probably a whole other thread, honestly, so I don't know if it's worth getting into why that happened or how it happened.

I would agree with that (I think I even made note of that when the Tea Party thing was going on, how they weren't getting a fair shake...). I'd also agree it's probably a different thread, but it's good to note our biases to continue in this one.

In the early stages of the movement, I'd agree. After they became the Fox News darlings and started shouting over town hall meetings, I stopped taking them seriously. It just became a more extreme wing of the Republican party. I respect that OWS is putting in the effort to not just be a ball in one party's political court, but a significant movement in its own right.

I think that there is actually a lot of common ground between the original Tea Party and OWS. From either side's POV, the middle class is getting hosed on taxes and the government is not using that money very well. Both want people to have a fair chance at succeeding in life.

Kraint wrote:

I think that there is actually a lot of common ground between the original Tea Party and OWS. From either side's POV, the middle class is getting hosed on taxes and the government is not using that money very well. Both want people to have a fair chance at succeeding in life.

Is there anyone that *doesn't* believe that to be true? Everyone seems to agree the middle class pays too much in taxes, so that's the common ground of...everyone. It's like saying two movements are both against putting babies on spikes.

As for the government not using that money very well, is that even accurate? Again, it's a 'babies on spikes' issue, where *everyone* has a problem with the government not using money well no matter where you are on the political spectrum. I don't know if OWS was ever about the message that bailouts were wrong, but instead was about the only people to get a bailout was Wall Street while students and homeowners and the rest of the 99% get told their problems are their own fault and they should take personal responsibility when they asked for a bailout for the rest of us.

edit: as for both want people to have a fair chance at succeeding in life, that's real 'babies on spikes territory. Is there anyone who *doesn't* believe that? If one group thinks government needs to get out of the way in order to do that, and the other thinks government needs to step up and level the playing field, I can't think of two more radically different positions without going off into truly fringe territory.