http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

and the quote:

“Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).”

of course he was citing that stat to bash liberals. but the stats are accurate, nonetheless. and what he fails to fully analyze is that conservatives actually give most donations to churches, not charities. liberals actually give more to charities when you exclude religious organizations.

my reading comp skills are just fine, thanks…yours? not so much.

and the 6% figure i quoted was from a washington post article by GEORGE WILL. know him?

Also, Gene was referring to China, India and S. America collectively in terms of POPULATION, not geopolitics. Try sharpening your reading comprehension skills along with your spelling.

Regards,
Peter H.

india is actual a democracy. FACT! and i don’t believe indians are terribly loyal to fidel castro.

oh, and btw, did you know liberal families earn, on average, 6% more than conservative families? i guess we’re not all sitting around on our ass collecting welfare, huh?

to the noob who said that it was only b/c obama was hyped by the media…do you really think any democrat would have fared a lot worse? it was more that the world was sick of republicans (i.e. bush/cheney), than that they loved obama, although the world obviously has a favorable opinion of obama. let me translate this for you: the opinion of the u.s. — a country led mostly by republicans — was low…people wanted CHANGE. hmm, sounds like a familiar buzz word in one of the campaigns…

and to the other noob: fidel castro would not win sweeping majorities in europe. he may win latin america and china…that’s about it. do we need a geopolitical refresher?

um, i’m pretty sure the notion that we have a “battered world image” is about as objective fact as it gets.

Say Boob, can you explain to me why we should give a crap about what the rest of the world thinks? I mean, you can’t make everybody happy. There’s no way in hell that we should abrogate our national security to a “Global Test” like that retard Kerry wanted to do.

Why should we care what people who drink the water they piss in think about us? Why should we care what people who are handing over their own countries to Islamo-fascists, hoping to be spared, think of us?

SCREW THEM!! They dream of being like us and moving herer. That’s not bragging because it’s true. If they don’t like us, to hell with them.

Why should we become quivering, bloody pussies worried about what they think?

So far you have failed to provide me one fact which shows how battered our world image became because of former president Bush.

I agree it has suffered and agree W could have — and should have — done more in the field of public diplomacy to improve our image, a diplomacy that would have gone hand in hand with his aggressive stance against terror and those who repeatedly violated UN resolutions.

the economist did a “world electoral map” in which citizens from every country could vote for u.s. president. obama won EVERY country except georgia and maybe one or two other tiny countries. over 90% of the world would have voted for obama (i.e. NOT for the republican). you do the math.

And there are other measures. Our relations had improved with a number of allies (and some adversaries) during the course of the Bush Administration. Ask Germany’s Chancellor, France’s President of Italy’s Prime Minister.

Personally speaking, after watching snippets of the presser on Fox News, I think that ABC’s Jake Tapper and FNC’s Major Garrett are the only reporters in that room. Everyone else was Obamasturbating.

Regards,
Peter H.

I do wish they’d make the effort to report the news in an unbiased manner (that is, without commentary) on the news pages and restrict their editorial commentary to the editoral pages.

Can’t be done if they rely on AP, etc., until AP gets it, however I have no “hope” that that will “change.”

The media’s treatment of the Lamb of Chicago is already a joke and will likely become even more of a joke as time passes. Even some of the most devoted Obama followers in this forum are starting to get a little defensive, and say things like, “I support Obama, but I’m not like those who worship his shadow.”

You see, folks, that’s how you have to look at this. Most of the press has turned itself into a propaganda outfit for the Democrats. And the people know it.

They’re too busy with their collective orgasm over Obama to notice their devouring what’s left of their credibility. When the process is finished we’ll be able to say “good riddance to bad rubbish.”