Ukraine

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Again, you demonstrate your lack of intelligence so I'll help you by not going so fast:



About a third of Harvard’s annual operating budget comes from the endowment; last year, it contributed around $1.7 billion to Harvard, or over a third of the University’s entire operating budget. That spending supports all the vital functions of the University, from professorships to the library collection to financial aid. Harvard’s 12 schools are funded by the endowment to different extents: The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, for example, receives about 50 percent of its funding from the endowment, while the School of Public Health—many of its expenses provided for by a $350 million gift from 2014—takes only about 15 percent of its budget from the endowment.


Edit - and remember when you couldn't understand how E. Warren's Harvard pay wasn't paid for by student's tuition bc it was an endowed chair. It was like you had no understanding of what an endowed chair was.

And let's not forget the idiotic statement about trying to compare church's charity (maybe 3-5% of donations?) to what say the American Red Cross provides - prob. 85% - 95% of donations.

So it's OK when rich liberals donate to Harvard, which uses those donations to pay Liz Warren $400,000 a year to teach one class.

But when your church maintains its buildings, that means it's not really a worthwhile charity.

So what you're really saying is, "it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it".

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So it's OK when rich liberals donate to Harvard, which uses those donations to pay Liz Warren $400,000 a year to teach one class.They can give it to whomever the law allows. Just as you and I can give to a church.

But when your church maintains its buildings, that means it's not really a worthwhile charity.

So what you're really saying is, "it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it".

No clown, let me take it step by step bc you can't seem to grasp anything. I'll go nice and slow.

You frequently claim that cons. give more than liberals. I always tell you that lot of it has to do with their giving it to churches which is somewhat self serving. You claim churches provide charity and I showed you that the vast majority of $ donated to churches goes to the church and very little goes to actually benefit a non member vs the vast majority donated to Red Cross which goes to people in need.

So I never claimed giving $ to churches was bad like the snarky troll claimed and which you agreed with or "that it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it" but to show you that a lot of the donations is somewhat self serving and your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong and they prob. give the same $%.

[Pete F.]

As usual, the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him.

In real terms, Harvard is a conservative place. Everyone who attends worked hard to get into there. Students like money and they like success. They place a great deal of focus on hard work and business connections. They understand the importance of preexisting institutions and don't attempt to alter that. Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means.

Of course if the standard bearer of what you claim is conservative america is a con man..........

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As usual, the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him.

In real terms, Harvard is a conservative place. Everyone who attends worked hard to get into there. Students like money and they like success. They place a great deal of focus on hard work and business connections. They understand the importance of preexisting institutions and don't attempt to alter that. Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means.

Of course if the standard bearer of what you claim is conservative america is a con man..........

"Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means."

Except for the kids who deserve to get in but don't, because of their skin color.

"the poor victim is crying about how liberals are hurting him."

Let's be very clear...you are making me crack up, you are not, and can not, hurt me. You're a source of entertainment.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Students at Harvard work within the current system; that is what conservatism means."

Except for the kids who deserve to get in but don't, because of their skin color.

"the poor dictim is crying about how liberals are hurting him."

Let's be very clear...you are making me crack up, you are not, and can not, hurt me. You're a source of entertainment.

Sad little man, my aim is not to hurt you, I’ll leave the causticity for you.

You think Harvard is more or less diverse than Jesuit Schools?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Sad little man, my aim is not to hurt you, I’ll leave the causticity for you.

You think Harvard is more or less diverse than Jesuit Schools?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know if Harvard or more or less diverse than Jesuit schools. I know for a fact that Harvard drastically adjusts admissions criteria based on skin color.

Too many Asians at Harvard, so they made it a lot harder for the Asians to get in. Conrad and Muffy can't be expected to share the sushi bar with too many Asians...

Pete, I could care less how diverse a student body is or isn't. I don't reduce people to their skin color. You just don't get it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't know if Harvard or more or less diverse than Jesuit schools. I know for a fact that Harvard drastically adjusts admissions criteria based on skin color.

Too many Asians at Harvard, so they made it a lot harder for the Asians to get in. Conrad and Muffy can't be expected to share the sushi bar with too many Asians...

Pete, I could care less how diverse a student body is or isn't. I don't reduce people to their skin color. You just don't get it.

If you don’t care then why are you worried?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

So I never claimed giving $ to churches was bad like the snarky troll claimed and which you agreed with or "that it's OK when liberals do it, only bad when conservatives do it" but to show you that a lot of the donations is somewhat self serving and your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong and they prob. give the same $%.

You said it doesn't really count as charitable giving, because (God forbid!) churches will use some of that money for expenses.

Third time, please tell me which charities you donate to, which have zero expenses.

"your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong"

Not according to the study I posted.

"they prob. give the same $%"

LET'S STICK TO THAT, because you may well be right...

If conservatives and liberals are about equally charitable, then on what basis could you say that conservatives stop caring about people after they are born?

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You said it doesn't really count as charitable giving, because (God forbid!) churches will use some of that money for expenses.I said it is self serving

Third time, please tell me which charities you donate to, which have zero expenses.Are you hearing things bc no one every claimed a charity had zero expenses (although there might be a few where expenses are subsidized).

"your repeated claiming that conserv. give more than liberals is wrong"

Not according to the study I posted. and I always show you a lot of it is self serving

"they prob. give the same $%"

LET'S STICK TO THAT, because you may well be right...
But your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect - not me or anyone else here
If conservatives and liberals are about equally charitable, then on what basis could you say that conservatives stop caring about people after they are born?

Their repeated attempts to cut benefits to minors/people who have babies whenever cons. come into control. Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

Right.

This is precisely why, in cities with the highest government spending, things are in such great shape.

Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left. He cut taxes (including capital gains taxes!), and paid for it with welfare cuts. But the left LOVES him. Because it's OK when democrats do it!!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Right.

This is precisely why, in cities with the highest government spending, things are in such great shape. I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.
Bill Clinton is an absolute hero on the left. He cut taxes (including capital gains taxes!), and paid for it with welfare cuts. But the left LOVES him. Because it's OK when democrats do it!!

NM

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I know you think every problem in cities is related to blacks but it is not. Poor people, people with mental/emotional, drug issues all live their. Plus a lot of the buildings are tax exempt.

Jim has never said that, when specifically discussing issues with black communities, he has said the problems blacks are experiencing have a correlation to democratic policies.

He never said that all problems in the cities are related to blacks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Their repeated attempts to cut benefits to minors/people who have babies whenever cons. come into control. Charity is never going to replace govern. spending.

"your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect"

But you're the one who would exclude some conservative charity on the grounds that it's self serving, but you never once mention liberals giving to Ivy League schools, or to the National Endowment of the Arts (investment bankers in Manhattan really need subsidized opera tickets), etc...

Because, as always, everything is OK when liberals do it!!

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"your the one who constantly posts a study which doesn't take into account the self serving aspect"

But you're the one who would exclude some conservative charity on the grounds that it's self serving, but you never once mention liberals giving to Ivy League schools, or to the National Endowment of the Arts (investment bankers in Manhattan really need subsidized opera tickets), etc...how is giving money to a opera house the same as giving money to a church?

Because, as always, everything is OK when liberals do it!!

NM