Everybody here is taking this article too seriously. You all have to realize that the media and politics have a very special relationship.

They hate each other and they throw their shit at each other but they both benefit in terms of a combination of publicity or money.

Off topic.. but why would you have Rosie ODonnell as your avatar? That's incredibly random. Do you think she's attractive or something?

I think this misses the point though. The point, is it's not my responsibility to make sure anyone outside of myself is taken care of.

Part of being a free country, is the freedom to be an asshole. I get the right to take the results of my efforts, and do whatever the hell I want with them. I personally chose to give portions of my efforts to help others, but no one should have the right to take it just because you think you have a better use of it then me. These are the human rights you don't care about, because they are not easy to like.

Try and care about everyones rights. Not just the rights of those you wish to help.

That simply isn't true.  Everyone in our society is dependent on other people.  Who built the university where you got your education, who built the road that connects your property to the economy, who desposes of your waste products, who came up with the idea for electric light bulbs, or processed food, or a drinkable water supply, or the process by which your clothes were produced, and the list goes on and on. 

For any person to think that the fruits they reap are solely from their own efforts is a fool, and they should go live in the jungle where their actions no longer have a negative effect on the rest of us, and society's positive actions no longer benefit them.  Welcome to civilization, founded 7000 BC.

Whenever you stop proporting them?  Your entire premise is HILARIOUSLY faulty as had already been pointed out.

Your reaching at cherry picking and bs just to hold on to your sad attempts to feel superieror despite the data showing otherwise when it comes to charity.

Your reaching, your gripping and just... generally wrong as you try and use extreme cherry pick... hypotheticals... which really are nothing more then hypotheticals.  Yeah, i'm sure all the conservative donations were rich buisness men for publicity. 

Even though you claim libearls also make more money.  Funny how that works.

You know what happens when you donate to charity... often times it makes you feel good, should charity suddenly only count when you feel like shit when donating?

Maybe if you say it enough times it will become true.

I have ten million dollars in my bank account, I have ten million dollars in my bank account, I have ten millin dollars in my bank account.

Update:

Damn, Kasz's method of changing reality has failed me.

I.. don't really get what your saying.  I have you know, actual data... while your holding on to hilarious cherry picking.

Clearly republicans donate more because it helps them, because they're rich and their buisnesses, but the liberals make more money... what?

You incoherently are trying to attribute all positive aspects to liberals and none to conservatives, even when positive aspects DIRECTLY conflict with each other.

Nothing you've said is remotely true, or remotley backed up with data.  Come back when you have some.  You're the one who has a problem with reality, simply because you don't like it, and feed in to the liberal mindset.  Just like a lot of people who feed in to the conservative mindset.  Your beliefs are nothing but talking points.

Come back when you have data, or learn to not be a tool of either party.  Show that a higher percentage of republican donations are used for "promotional donations."

As for "otherworldly rewards" should be not count people who feel good because they donate to charity too?  If I give 20 dollars to a guy on the street and feel a little better about myself... should that suddenly not count?

Aside from which, if someone thinks charity gets them into heaven... they probably aren't strict observing christians.  Christians don't believe good works get you into heaven.  They just believe that they should look after their fellow man.

Well we each feel the other to be a fool, so continuing is just... well... foolish.

All I can do is shake my head that that post, and say wow... Nothing more to say really.

I've presented a more logical argument than you could ever dream of constructing.  All I get from you is this study says 6% and this says 30%, but you are unable to think about and apply reasoning to the data you present.  Anyone with half a brain knows that urban expenses are higher than rural expenses, that it isn't as charitable when someone requires rewards for their gift, and so forth.  The fact that I would even have to bring these points up is sad on your part.

Should be not count people who feel good because they donate to charity too?  If I give 20 dollars to a guy on the street and feel a little better about myself... should that suddenly not count?

Finally, you are starting to think more rationally about qualitative data.  This is just another item in the cost / benefit analysis that people go through in everyday life, including decisions regarding donating to charity.  And no, you are not going to be able to quantify it and say that feeling good about yourself is worth 29% of the donation so conservatives are still 8% more charitable.

Then are you suggesting we embrace extreme socialism?