Actually, research tends to point the other way.... Marketing is more effective on liberals when it focuses on the suffering people are going through.  While it works better on republicans when it focuses on a communal duty to do right by your community.

Although this may be due to a ceiling effect because religious people in general do give more.  Religious correlating of course with conservative.

You wouldn't have access to scientific journals would you?

Most reserch studies have such a small sample size that they are pretty much useless due to the large margin of error.

and here I thought it was supposed to be conservatives who rejected widely approved and accepted research on the basis of political movtives.

Meh, somewhat figured as much by your generally feckless seemingly off the top of your head responses, but it's fun to point this stuff out with facts, because even if the person doesn't want to admit it... you can usually tell when they realize deep down they don't have a leg to stand on.

You should note, compassion and guilt really basically the same thing. (also, liberals make more on average then conservatives.)

Anyway Richard, i'm going to talk about one of the most recent research studies because I think you'd find it interesting and it'd help make my point.

Atheism correlates with Conservativsm and Religiousness liberalism on average, so i'd cite this study.

"My Brothers Keeper"

Social Psychological and Personality Science journal

Liberal websites like the Huffington Post excitidly posted about an advance abstract that they though proved atheists were more compassionate and more  charitable then the religious, without looking at the data i suppose.

What they did was they used priming along with an old "game theory" money giving experiment.

Priming is when you show something meant to effect the actions of others.  For example you might show one group of people a waterfall, then another people taking, to see if the people who see the waterfall have to pee first.

Basically how the compassion expierment works is you bring two subjects into the room and give him $100 and tell him he can split that money between the two of them anyway he wants.

So what they did was... they showed people one of two videos.  One, the control, of two men just talking about something unrelated.   In the other, it talked about poor children who were starving.

Afterwords, they were given the money and asked to split it.

As it turns out.  There was almost no change among the religious.  The religious gave an average of $3.90 for every 10 dollars when viewing the control... and $4.10 when viewing the video meant to incite compassion.

Now Atheist, there was a HUGE change.  When directly induced with compassion, the atheist gave around $5.60 per 10!   However... when it came to the control.  The atheist only ended up giving  60 cents for every dollar given.

This either suggests that atheists are MUCH more motivated by direct suffering of others... or are just less consious of it on a day to day basis.

How is me pointing out the margin of error in research a top of my head respose if most people don't even have a clue what the margin of error is when it comes to research.

Because research tends to have these things called confidence intervals that are basically margin of errors that account for sample size.  First thing you learn about in research methods.

Oh... and for the Koch Brothers...

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/02/koch-brothers-give-more-to-charity-than-to-right-wing-causes/

Of course he says that. You get a huge tax write-off if you give to charity.

I'm for smaller government, but I think that more money should be spent on education. Good education leads to a better country. Why do we spen more money on Jails and cut money from education. If we spent more money on education, we wouldn't need to spend as much on Jails.

Also here is his promotion for his own charity.

The Koch Brothers have so much money its hard for them to spend it all on gaining more power through right wing causes so once in a while they have to give to charity.  You can be charitable and still be scum and a terrible person overall Ted Nugent is a prime example for that.

Or... they could just... not spend that money.  Rather then spend 6 times the amount on charity.    If it makes you feel better that despite the fact that conservatives give more to charity (including billionaries vs liberal billionaries) it doesn't matter because they're terrible people....

hey go for it.

As they say "You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"

now what guilt would that be?

but you do seem to have a well researched thought out and compelling argument, so i think i will take your word for it.