They also won the popular vote in both those cases. Probably makes it harder to accept.

tbirdspur2010 said:

---

Blows my mind how much the left has melted when Trump isn't even a true conservative.

---

In the unlikely event that they succeed in removing Trump from office, they're really going to melt down when Pence is in charge.

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

Then maybe libs should start being charitable and quit expecting conservatives to pay for everything.

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?p

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

I'd have a helluva lot more money for charity if people like YOU would quit voting to take money from people like ME.

If it didn't violate my core principles, I'd love to steal half your wealth to see how you like it.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

Then maybe libs should start being charitable and quit expecting conservatives to pay for everything.

---

Citation needed on the claim correlating libtards with lack of charitable donations.

GeorgiaAg85 said:

---

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?p

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

I'd have a helluva lot more money for charity if people like YOU would quit voting to take money from people like ME.

If it didn't violate my core principles, I'd love to steal half your wealth to see how you like it.

---

Good to see threats don't violate your core principals rofl

adjointfunctor said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

Then maybe libs should start being charitable and quit expecting conservatives to pay for everything.

---

Citation needed on the claim correlating libtards with lack of charitable donations.

---

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

You obviously don't know what a threat is. This ain't one.

Anyhow, I'm glad you are so courageous that you can be so generous with other people's hard earned money. Good for you.

GeorgiaAg85 said:

---

adjointfunctor said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

Then maybe libs should start being charitable and quit expecting conservatives to pay for everything.

---

Citation needed on the claim correlating libtards with lack of charitable donations.

---

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/23/surprise-conservatives-are-more-generous-than-liberals/

---

Cool. So he found households led by R's donate about 30% more than household headed by D's. According to my calculations, if we assume that this is the same for all households in the US and we have an equal number of households led by either party, we get that 56.5% of charitable donations come from R households and 43.5% from D households. That's pretty distinct, I'll admit. However, household income could be a confounding variable here, throwing things off a bit, as R's will have more income on average.

Nevertheless, even if the D's added in that extra 13% to total donations to meet up with what the R's pay (even while making less money in aggregate), we still couldn't even pay for Medicaid! Hence, my point!

GeorgiaAg85 said:

---

You obviously don't know what a threat is. This ain't one.

Anyhow, I'm glad you are so courageous that you can be so generous with other people's hard earned money. Good for you.

---

I pay a boatload of taxes too so whatever man.

Quote:

---

Cool. So he found households led by R's donate about 30% more than household headed by D's. According to my calculations, if we assume that this is the same for all households in the US and we have an equal number of households led by either party, we get that 56.5% of charitable donations come from R households and 43.5% from D households. That's pretty distinct, I'll admit. However, household income could be a confounding variable here, throwing things off a bit, as R's will have more income on average.

Nevertheless, even if the D's added in that extra 13% to total donations to meet up with what the R's pay (even while making less money in aggregate), we still couldn't even pay for Medicaid! Hence, my point!

---

The issue with using the costs/figures from the government ledgers is those amounts include all the waste, fraud, and unnecessary bureaucracy. The actual dollar amount that makes it into the hands of those in need is far, far less. Even the amount that makes it into peoples hands is grossly misused.

As a small example, I worked at the College Station Winn Dixie when I was at A&M. So many times, I saw a $20 food stamp being used to buy something trivial for $1-$2. They would then take the change, which was cash, and buy cigarettes and/or beer/wine. Even those buying food were not buying the store brands. Hell, one lady spent ~$50 on freaking lunchables .... She could have had more food buying a block of cheese, box of crackers, and piece of ring bologna, and done so at ~$6. She also was driving a much nicer car than I, but that is a different story.

adjointfunctor said:

---

aggiejayrod said:

---

bay fan said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

bay fan said:

---

What about the Christians that would happily allow those in need to starve to death or die of a curable disease rather then help those less fortunate?

---

Source?

Believing it isn't the government's responsibility to help people does not mean you want them to die. Why must libs always resort to extreme emotionally-charged rhetoric instead of honest dialogue?

---

I am not attacking, but asking an honest question, why is that more Christian then the opposite? I did not say Want people to die, you mis represented my words. I did say allow them to die rather then use tax money to help them. There is a difference between being tolerant of those unable to support themselves dying and wanting them to die but the end result is the same.

---

The major problem is you misrepresent the right's side despite "claiming" to be one and spewing leftist talking points. Conservatives want to get government out of welfare and better use their time and money assisting the less fortunate themselves. We believe that the government is useless since 95% (pulled out of my bum) of the money used for welfare goes to (mis)management then gets handed without strings to people many of which deserve nothing.

I personally am not "happy" with people starving to death. I'm not going to be lectured by a liberal (BS to you claiming to vote republican) that being opposed to the government taking my hard earned money from my wallet and handing it to morbidly obese people that are starving. That's why I volunteer, and donate money and food to causes that I deem worthy. Less government interference would mean more money and food I could give to those causes. But at least you feel good voting away my money.

---

What if the country as a whole is not generous enough to support the welfare system? Not everyone is as generous is you!

Here are some numbers not from my bum.

Medicaid spending 2016: 574 billion
Charitable donations 2015: 374 billion

---

It's been many, many years since the studies were posted and well hashed here but charitable causes were about 9x more efficient and effective with resources than state run welfare.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Cool. So he found households led by R's donate about 30% more than household headed by D's. According to my calculations, if we assume that this is the same for all households in the US and we have an equal number of households led by either party, we get that 56.5% of charitable donations come from R households and 43.5% from D households. That's pretty distinct, I'll admit. However, household income could be a confounding variable here, throwing things off a bit, as R's will have more income on average.

Nevertheless, even if the D's added in that extra 13% to total donations to meet up with what the R's pay (even while making less money in aggregate), we still couldn't even pay for Medicaid! Hence, my point!

---

The issue with using the costs/figures from the government ledgers is those amounts include all the waste, fraud, and unnecessary bureaucracy. The actual dollar amount that makes it into the hands of those in need is far, far less. Even the amount that makes it into peoples hands is grossly misused.

As a small example, I worked at the College Station Winn Dixie when I was at A&M. So many times, I saw a $20 food stamp being used to buy something trivial for $1-$2. They would then take the change, which was cash, and buy cigarettes and/or beer/wine. Even those buying food were not buying the store brands. Hell, one lady spent ~$50 on freaking lunchables .... She could have had more food buying a block of cheese, box of crackers, and piece of ring bologna, and done so at ~$6. She also was driving a much nicer car than I, but that is a different story.

---

That's (first paragraph) no doubt an issue, but unless the programs are ridiculously inefficient, I don't see how charitable donations could pick up the slack without some help from Uncle Sam. Anyone got numbers on welfare spending efficiency?

Vernada said:

---

The idea that the right has a monopoly on Christianity is not only asinine but probably the most dangerously divisive belief one could hold.

---

Ecclesiastes 10:2 "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

HTH - GOD

adjointfunctor said:

---

We fixed the keg said:

---

Quote:

---

Cool. So he found households led by R's donate about 30% more than household headed by D's. According to my calculations, if we assume that this is the same for all households in the US and we have an equal number of households led by either party, we get that 56.5% of charitable donations come from R households and 43.5% from D households. That's pretty distinct, I'll admit. However, household income could be a confounding variable here, throwing things off a bit, as R's will have more income on average.

Nevertheless, even if the D's added in that extra 13% to total donations to meet up with what the R's pay (even while making less money in aggregate), we still couldn't even pay for Medicaid! Hence, my point!

---

The issue with using the costs/figures from the government ledgers is those amounts include all the waste, fraud, and unnecessary bureaucracy. The actual dollar amount that makes it into the hands of those in need is far, far less. Even the amount that makes it into peoples hands is grossly misused.

As a small example, I worked at the College Station Winn Dixie when I was at A&M. So many times, I saw a $20 food stamp being used to buy something trivial for $1-$2. They would then take the change, which was cash, and buy cigarettes and/or beer/wine. Even those buying food were not buying the store brands. Hell, one lady spent ~$50 on freaking lunchables .... She could have had more food buying a block of cheese, box of crackers, and piece of ring bologna, and done so at ~$6. She also was driving a much nicer car than I, but that is a different story.

---

That's (first paragraph) no doubt an issue, but unless the programs are ridiculously inefficient, I don't see how charitable donations could pick up the slack without some help from Uncle Sam. Anyone got numbers on welfare spending efficiency?

---

CMS.gov reports $58.6 Billion to administer $545 Billion in 2016 about 10.7%.

ZIP file of the data

So the efficiency starts at ~89% before any healthcare is provided. Having said that, I don't know how much stock you can put in any of those numbers. I am not saying they are fudged in an "Enron style" accounting, rather how that $545 Billion is spent. $100 Aspirin, $10k for an ambulance, etc. The point being, the actual number to provide the care is much less but how much would be a guess.

You are entitled to your opinion and it may be true for some people that vote democrat. However, there are great devilish consequences for voting for democrats.

If you like no prayer in school...thank a democrat.

If you like the removal of the Ten Commandments from schools and courthouses...thank a democrat.

If you like being made guilty to have a Christmas break...thank a democrat.

If you like having nativity scenes banned from the courthouse...thank a democrat.


If you are voting for the politicians that don't attack Christianity then you will never vote for a democrat!!!!!

Vernada said:

---

The idea that the right has a monopoly on Christianity is not only asinine but probably the most dangerously divisive belief one could hold.

---

I can think of several more dangerously divisive beliefs...

The Left and the Right in this country have no common ideological ground. The two sides have nothing to unite them.