Angela McGlowan is a revisionist, just like Coulter. See p
ost 79 for guidance and education on your false premises.
OMG!!!
You mean you don't agree with Coulter????
...and not Ms. McGlowan, either??
Any other paragons whose work you have never inspected, but with whom you vehemently disagree???
As usual...just be prepared for sarcasm and egregious vituperativeness.
"Angela McGlowan is a revisionist, just like Coulter."
What we have here is the Liberal's verbal equivalent of 'talk to the hand.'
Both of the above are insightful, brilliant....and correct.
Here's some more McGlowan....examples that I'm certain you'll agree with:
1. . "The bamboozlers' mantra became: "We liberals are here to help you. Don't let those evil conservatives judge you. You're the victim!
You shouldn't have to work. Your standard of living isn't your responsibility. It's ours. You don't need to marry your baby's daddy. Uncle Sam is your baby's daddy, and will be as long as you keep voting for us." -- P.13
2. "I grew up in segregation," says New York Times best-selling conservative author Shelby Steele, "so I really know what racism is. I went to a segregated school. I bow to no one in my knowledge of racism, which is one of the reasons why I say white privilege is not a problem....
Racism is about eighteenth on a list of problems black America faces." -- P.38-39
3. "Without any scientific justification, liberals hoodwink black and Latino parents into believing that having more minorities teach their children will improve their performance. When Wallace, Lester Maddox, and Bull Connor supported doing this, we called them racists.
Isn't it ironic that many of the advocates of this policy today belong to the same party as George Wallace and Lester Maddox?" -- P.60
All true......right?
There is a lot of 'justification' going on, but none of it is true. It is the rhetoric of moral justification for not caring about anyone but yourself. And it is the conservative mantra that the only way people learn is by punishment. That is why conservatives vehemently support racists like Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and draconian racial profiling laws like Arizona SB 1070. Vehemently oppose gay rights and conservatives advocate for the right to make hate films that desecrate Muhammad.
1. "... but none of it is true."
Is that fear I hear??
2. "It is the rhetoric of moral justification for not caring about anyone but yourself."
What an excellent opportunity to quote myself: "Let's be honest, for a Liberal not data, facts, proof, or even experience will matter not a bit in informing belief."
Shall we prove it? OK.
"SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.
The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.
In the book, he cites
extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.
The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.
When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."
For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."
Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
...Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.
Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.
He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10
databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from
scientific surveys. The data are
adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.
His book, he says, is
carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.
The book's basic findings are that
conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.
Conversely,
secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.
Such an attitude, he writes, not only
shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said,
he backs up with statistical analysis.
"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."
Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that
liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.
"His main finding is quite startling, that
the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."
Philanthropy Expert Says Conservatives Are More Generous -- Beliefnet.com - Pangloss's column on Newsvine
Again?
"...the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least,"
Now....please...do what you were born to do: deny the truth!