Post: #1

Read a very incisive article from Charles Hugh Smith.

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/201...ricas.html

He articulates something better than I ever could-- I feel we are missing the whole point in a way focusing on who wins elections when things are really controlled by money. Until now, the elected officials were mostly just pawns of the rich -- now the are directly installing themselves.

The latest Secretary of Education is a perfect example. No teaching experience, never attended a public school, kids don't attend a public school, extremely wealthy -- actually from the plantation owner -- Walmart!

What can her job be but to reduce the supply cost of drones for Walmart, like any good corporate executive would? And to STOP BUYING the inferior product of sub 90 IQ humans-- which cannot be resold. Simple get them out of the system. It's just business.

To feel the locus of control in society is the government is largely erroneous: It is the corporations that "donate" to ( own) the politicians.

Edited Excerpt:
"The only possible output of a hyper-financialized Plantation Economy is rapidly increasing wealth and income inequality--precisely what we see now."

Global capital has optimized the Plantation Model in the form of global corporations. Wal-Mart is the quintessential example. Like a classic agricultural plantation, Wal-Mart enters a region with...small businesses ....and it bulldozes the entire "forest" .... with the irresistible blade of integrated global supply chains and "lower prices, always."
Wal-Mart replaces the localized economy with a low-pay, highly efficient plantation economy in which the townpeople's only choice is to work for Wal-Mart or scrape out a living feeding the Wal-Mart workers, doing their laundry, etc.--exactly as on a classic plantation.
.......
Isn't it odd how this statement--the nation does not exist to benefit corporations, corporations exist to benefit the nation and its citizenry --sounds breathtakingly revolutionary in today's politics of experience?
=============================

Post: #2

I went on Smith's site, he has this book as one of his "essential books":
"Boiling Point: How Politicians, Big Oil and Coal, Journalists, and Activists Have Fueled a Climate Crisis -- And What We Can Do to Avert Disaster"

as well as a bunch of books about Peak Oil. It sounds like he's a purple piller. Looks like a fairly well-read, well-rounded guy, great list of films (especially the Japanese list), but I don't think he has a full grasp of global financial issues. Anticapitalism without an understanding of the financial mechanics of central banking and its cultural roots is just a dead end.

Post: #3

"Politics is the entertainment branch of industry" - Frank Zappa, 1987

Post: #4

Zappa, as well as many of the musicians who headlined the 1960s counterculture (Jim Morrison, Grateful Dead, etc) came from deep state families, so he should know. He was involved in entertainment, and along with his cohort shped the culture of his time, and thus the politics.

Post: #5

Criticizing a Trump nominee?

Better prepare yourself:

Post: #6

Hey, it's more than OK to criticize DeVos and other Trump nominees, especially if you have an interesting, well-supported angle for your points. The problem is, Smith is criticizing her because of her ties to the Walmart fortune, as opposed to her actual positions on education. That's a fairly shallow take.

The real problem with Smith here is that he's probably doesn't understand who the powers that have shaped and damaged the American education system really are. I doubt he's ever heard of Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, and probably doesn't understand that the goal of Common Core and the globalist education system is to dumb down and indoctrinate the youth. This would be a good introduction to Mrs. Iserbyt, a whistleblowing elite insider who served in Reagan's Dept. of Education:





I'm under the impression that DeVos, Bannon and Trump understand the roots of the problem, or at least know the damage done from decades of cultural engineering, and are trying to undo it.

Post: #7

Author doesn't mention how fundamental public education is to the communist manifesto (Plank 10). All ten planks below presented without commentary:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Post: #8

Forum socialist OP wrong again.

Modern corporation would not exit without the state.

Much gnashing of teeth and worry about businesses trying to eliminate competition and have monopoly control.

Yet what is the government but a monopoly of force in a given area?

Post: #9

(02-10-2017 05:16 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  Read a very incisive article from Charles Hugh Smith.

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/201...ricas.html

He articulates something better than I ever could-- I feel we are missing the whole point in a way focusing on who wins elections when things are really controlled by money. Until now, the elected officials were mostly just pawns of the rich -- now the are directly installing themselves.

The latest Secretary of Education is a perfect example. No teaching experience, never attended a public school, kids don't attend a public school, extremely wealthy -- actually from the plantation owner -- Walmart!

What can her job be but to reduce the supply cost of drones for Walmart, like any good corporate executive would? And to STOP BUYING the inferior product of sub 90 IQ humans-- which cannot be resold. Simple get them out of the system. It's just business.

To feel the locus of control in society is the government is largely erroneous: It is the corporations that "donate" to ( own) the politicians.

Edited Excerpt:
"The only possible output of a hyper-financialized Plantation Economy is rapidly increasing wealth and income inequality--precisely what we see now."

Global capital has optimized the Plantation Model in the form of global corporations. Wal-Mart is the quintessential example. Like a classic agricultural plantation, Wal-Mart enters a region with...small businesses ....and it bulldozes the entire "forest" .... with the irresistible blade of integrated global supply chains and "lower prices, always."
Wal-Mart replaces the localized economy with a low-pay, highly efficient plantation economy in which the townpeople's only choice is to work for Wal-Mart or scrape out a living feeding the Wal-Mart workers, doing their laundry, etc.--exactly as on a classic plantation.
.......
Isn't it odd how this statement--the nation does not exist to benefit corporations, corporations exist to benefit the nation and its citizenry --sounds breathtakingly revolutionary in today's politics of experience?
=============================

You (and he) got it backwards:

The Corporations are just the PR Branch of the Government.

They enforce compliance and obedience where the government cannot. If you control someone's livelihood, you have great control over them. Look at where the government regulates the hardest across all industries: Human Resources. Do you really think that's because they care about ugly feminists and disadvantaged minorities?

A more fluid world in which we were all independent contractors and where our incomes were spread over so many customers/employers that each became granular would be much more free.

As for Mrs. DeVos in particular:

In Canada, where you live, parents have much broader latitude in where to send their kids to school than America.

Also, do you know which 2 countries have the best school voucher system that DeVos proposes? Denmark and Sweden. You know, the 2 most perfect countries in the world according to Bernie Sanders (if you ignore the migrant problems).

Not to mention, as a Brazilian living in Canada, why do you care about the American education system? Sec State, Sec Def, Sec DHS, even AG and Sec Tres, I could understand, but Sec Ed? There probably is no other US Federal Department that has less impact on the rest of the world, including Canada and Brazil, than that.

Is it because her brother is Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater?

Post: #10

(02-10-2017 09:37 PM)beta_plus Wrote:  

(02-10-2017 05:16 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  =============================

As for Mrs. DeVos in particular:

In Canada, where you live, parents have much broader latitude in where to send their kids to school than America.

Also, do you know which 2 countries have the best school voucher system that DeVos proposes? Denmark and Sweden. You know, the 2 most perfect countries in the world according to Bernie Sanders (if you ignore the migrant problems).

Not to mention, as a Brazilian living in Canada, why do you care about the American education system? Sec State, Sec Def, Sec DHS, even AG and Sec Tres, I could understand, but Sec Ed? There probably is no other US Federal Department that has less impact on the rest of the world, including Canada and Brazil, than that.

Not sure I understand why vouchers are relevant or why the citizenship and residence of OP matter (although my impression is you got those backwards), but Sec Ed is VERY important to the rest of the world, albeit mostly in the medium- to the long term. The President, Sec State and Sec Def have huge influence practically everywhere, and DHS can make life hell for outsiders trying to go into America, so yes, their SHORT-TERM influence is most important. But it is education that prepares voters for their important task and the failure of education in motivating young voters and educating old voters has just been proven late last year. I strongly suspect that previous Education secretaries, be they of the Donkey- or the Elephant persuasion, cannot be too pleased about their "product." Now, surely there are many members here who think the election result last year was wonderful. All I can say to them is enjoy the illusion as long as you can.

Post: #11

(07-09-2017 11:33 PM)Old SEA Dog Wrote:  Not sure I understand why vouchers are relevant or why the citizenship and residence of OP matter (although my impression is you got those backwards), but Sec Ed is VERY important to the rest of the world, albeit mostly in the medium- to the long term. The President, Sec State and Sec Def have huge influence practically everywhere, and DHS can make life hell for outsiders trying to go into America, so yes, their SHORT-TERM influence is most important. But it is education that prepares voters for their important task and the failure of education in motivating young voters and educating old voters has just been proven late last year. I strongly suspect that previous Education secretaries, be they of the Donkey- or the Elephant persuasion, cannot be too pleased about their "product." Now, surely there are many members here who think the election result last year was wonderful. All I can say to them is enjoy the illusion as long as you can.

No one really cares what you think until you have 50 posts. Now go talk about something other than politics for a while.

(02-10-2017 05:16 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  The latest Secretary of Education is a perfect example. No teaching experience, never attended a public school, kids don't attend a public school, extremely wealthy -- actually from the plantation owner -- Walmart!
What can her job be but to reduce the supply cost of drones for Walmart, like any good corporate executive would? And to STOP BUYING the inferior product of sub 90 IQ humans-- which cannot be resold. Simple get them out of the system. It's just business.

I don't understand this. Can you explain how it's DeVos's job to get Walmart to "stop buying the inferior product of sub 90 IQ humans"? Or maybe list DeVos policies that benefit Walmart?

Quote:Isn't it odd how this statement--the nation does not exist to benefit corporations, corporations exist to benefit the nation and its citizenry --sounds breathtakingly revolutionary in today's politics of experience?
=============================

I'm going to be perfectly honest, it sounds like a basic bitch talking point that I could've heard at democratic rally at any time over the past 10 years. Hell, Sanders and Warren say this stuff 50 times a week.

Post: #12

(07-09-2017 11:45 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 11:33 PM)Old SEA Dog Wrote:  Not sure I understand why vouchers are relevant or why the citizenship and residence of OP matter (although my impression is you got those backwards), but Sec Ed is VERY important to the rest of the world, albeit mostly in the medium- to the long term. The President, Sec State and Sec Def have huge influence practically everywhere, and DHS can make life hell for outsiders trying to go into America, so yes, their SHORT-TERM influence is most important. But it is education that prepares voters for their important task and the failure of education in motivating young voters and educating old voters has just been proven late last year. I strongly suspect that previous Education secretaries, be they of the Donkey- or the Elephant persuasion, cannot be too pleased about their "product." Now, surely there are many members here who think the election result last year was wonderful. All I can say to them is enjoy the illusion as long as you can.

No one really cares what you think until you have 50 posts. Now go talk about something other than politics for a while.

With all due respect to your exalted senior status, if you don't care don't respond. If you do respond, consider the option to be less rude. I am not asking you to respect my opinion, but if you think that hushing those whose opinions you (apparently) don't like wins any argument then I respectfully suggest you think again. You don't want to come across as a young punk, do you?

Post: #13

While his diagnosis of the problem is in the correct ballpark, his solution is pure Bernie socialism. it would make things worse instead of better.

Post: #14

(07-12-2017 02:59 PM)Old SEA Dog Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 11:45 PM)SamuelBRoberts Wrote:  

(07-09-2017 11:33 PM)Old SEA Dog Wrote:  Not sure I understand why vouchers are relevant or why the citizenship and residence of OP matter (although my impression is you got those backwards), but Sec Ed is VERY important to the rest of the world, albeit mostly in the medium- to the long term. The President, Sec State and Sec Def have huge influence practically everywhere, and DHS can make life hell for outsiders trying to go into America, so yes, their SHORT-TERM influence is most important. But it is education that prepares voters for their important task and the failure of education in motivating young voters and educating old voters has just been proven late last year. I strongly suspect that previous Education secretaries, be they of the Donkey- or the Elephant persuasion, cannot be too pleased about their "product." Now, surely there are many members here who think the election result last year was wonderful. All I can say to them is enjoy the illusion as long as you can.

No one really cares what you think until you have 50 posts. Now go talk about something other than politics for a while.

With all due respect to your exalted senior status, if you don't care don't respond. If you do respond, consider the option to be less rude. I am not asking you to respect my opinion, but if you think that hushing those whose opinions you (apparently) don't like wins any argument then I respectfully suggest you think again. You don't want to come across as a young punk, do you?

Dude, the forum rules themselves -- look up the top of the page to the green banner, it has a link to them -- say that you're not permitted to post on political matters until you've got at least 50 posts. "Political matters" is pretty much this entire subforum.

That's why he's saying nobody cares what you think -- in this forum -- until you've got 50, and why he told you to go talk about something other than politics for a while.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #15

(07-13-2017 01:34 PM)Nalka Wrote:  While his diagnosis of the problem is in the correct ballpark, his solution is pure Bernie socialism. it would make things worse instead of better.

Liberal leaning folks are good at noting the issues with existing political systems. Ignoring the extremist SJWs, who see problems that don't exist, your average person with liberal sensibilities would like to see the world be a better place.

Conservatives tend to be self-serving types who ignore all existing problems that don't affect them personally.

Neither group is particularly adept at presenting solutions that would actually better our world, although there is a segment (of liberals) who are getting their hands dirty trying.

Look up the type of people who are working on projects such as aquaponic growing systems and you'll find individuals who are genuinely putting their money (and time) where their mouth is.

You'll find a few conservatives in that group, but it is mostly dominated by liberals.

Post: #16

Top-down policies are related to big government. This is where the left falls down. They have the right idea but wish to bring about change by giving the government more powers.

The balance between worker and corporation must exist independently of a third party, the government. Workers should feel confident to walk away or go on strike from their employer.

Yet workers are not empowered to do so. This is again related to females in the workforce, as women are more likely to respect their corporate masters, and would likely fill-in where male workers are likely to walk-away.

Post: #17

(07-13-2017 09:46 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 01:34 PM)Nalka Wrote:  While his diagnosis of the problem is in the correct ballpark, his solution is pure Bernie socialism. it would make things worse instead of better.

Liberal leaning folks are good at noting the issues with existing political systems. Ignoring the extremist SJWs, who see problems that don't exist, your average person with liberal sensibilities would like to see the world be a better place.

Conservatives tend to be self-serving types who ignore all existing problems that don't affect them personally.

Neither group is particularly adept at presenting solutions that would actually better our world, although there is a segment (of liberals) who are getting their hands dirty trying.

Look up the type of people who are working on projects such as aquaponic growing systems and you'll find individuals who are genuinely putting their money (and time) where their mouth is.

You'll find a few conservatives in that group, but it is mostly dominated by liberals.

All false, completely ignorant nonsense.

Conservatives are self-serving? When in fact...

- Conservatives donate far more to charity (because they believe in God)
- Make up 80% of the military frontline and casualty list (because they believe in God)
- Do far more to promote families (which is the bedrock of civilization, because they believe in God)

Meanwhile for every Liberal helping the poor or working on some invention, there are 1000 liberals sucking up taxpayer money and blowing it on drugs and booze. Most liberals are selfish hedonists, conservatives aren't even close by comparison.

Post: #18

Leftists are selfish narcissists who advocate importing third world savages without ever considering what the consequences of that will be for their countrymen. Selfless my ass.

Post: #19

(07-14-2017 02:37 PM)RaccoonFace Wrote:  Leftists are selfish narcissists who advocate importing third world savages without ever considering what the consequences of that will be for their countrymen. Selfless my ass.

While walking by homeless and disaffected and not even giving them a passing glance.

   

^80% of libs.

Post: #20

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 09:46 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 01:34 PM)Nalka Wrote:  While his diagnosis of the problem is in the correct ballpark, his solution is pure Bernie socialism. it would make things worse instead of better.

Liberal leaning folks are good at noting the issues with existing political systems. Ignoring the extremist SJWs, who see problems that don't exist, your average person with liberal sensibilities would like to see the world be a better place.

Conservatives tend to be self-serving types who ignore all existing problems that don't affect them personally.

Neither group is particularly adept at presenting solutions that would actually better our world, although there is a segment (of liberals) who are getting their hands dirty trying.

Look up the type of people who are working on projects such as aquaponic growing systems and you'll find individuals who are genuinely putting their money (and time) where their mouth is.

You'll find a few conservatives in that group, but it is mostly dominated by liberals.

All false, completely ignorant nonsense.

Conservatives are self-serving? When in fact...

- Conservatives donate far more to charity (because they believe in God)

This may be true, but it doesn't prove anything, as people don't always donate to charity for selfless reasons.

They often do it to prove that they are "good people" and justify other areas of selfishness.

They often donate for self-serving political reasons. It was be infantile to believe that all so-called non-profits are non-political.

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Make up 80% of the military frontline and casualty list (because they believe in God)

They don't necessarily do this because they believe in God. They do it for a sense of identity.

If more people were liberal, the government wouldn't be able to fight so many pointless wars, as it is always the conservatives who are on the frontlines of "trusting the government."

We saw that in the Iraqi War, where despite there being very reasonable questions about the justification to go to war, conservatives were quick to argue that we needed to "trust George W. Bush" because he was a Christian, patriotism, etc.

Look where that got us.

Conservatives aren't eager to go to war because they believe in God. If they really understood the Christian message and actually understood politics (and how soldiers are essentially useful idiots for more powerful entities), it would be the opposite.

They are eager to join the military and go to war for self-serving purposes.

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Do far more to promote families (which is the bedrock of civilization, because they believe in God)

Simply not the case. Atheists (generally liberals) have a lower divorce rate than so-called Christians.

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Meanwhile for every Liberal helping the poor or working on some invention, there are 1000 liberals sucking up taxpayer money and blowing it on drugs and booze. Most liberals are selfish hedonists, conservatives aren't even close by comparison.

Show me your source, so that I know that you didn't make up this statistic.

Post: #21

(02-10-2017 05:33 PM)911 Wrote:  as well as a bunch of books about Peak Oil.

He'll probably give you a discount on those if you ask.

Post: #22

(07-14-2017 02:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 09:46 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 01:34 PM)Nalka Wrote:  While his diagnosis of the problem is in the correct ballpark, his solution is pure Bernie socialism. it would make things worse instead of better.

Liberal leaning folks are good at noting the issues with existing political systems. Ignoring the extremist SJWs, who see problems that don't exist, your average person with liberal sensibilities would like to see the world be a better place.

Conservatives tend to be self-serving types who ignore all existing problems that don't affect them personally.

Neither group is particularly adept at presenting solutions that would actually better our world, although there is a segment (of liberals) who are getting their hands dirty trying.

Look up the type of people who are working on projects such as aquaponic growing systems and you'll find individuals who are genuinely putting their money (and time) where their mouth is.

You'll find a few conservatives in that group, but it is mostly dominated by liberals.

All false, completely ignorant nonsense.

Conservatives are self-serving? When in fact...

- Conservatives donate far more to charity (because they believe in God)

This may be true, but it doesn't prove anything, as people don't always donate to charity for selfless reasons.

They often do it to prove that they are "good people" and justify other areas of selfishness.

They often donate for self-serving political reasons. It was be infantile to believe that all so-called non-profits are non-political.

Nope, not only do charities report where they get most their volunteers and donations from (red states) but analysis's of tax returns show that red state people also claim fewer tax-deductions for charitable giving.

They give and don't tell anyone about it, like it says to do in Matthew 5.

Quote:

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Make up 80% of the military frontline and casualty list (because they believe in God)

They don't necessarily do this because they believe in God. They do it for a sense of identity.

False again. Google, "There is no love hath greater than to give your life for a friend."

Quote:If more people were liberal, the government wouldn't be able to fight so many pointless wars, as it is always the conservatives who are on the frontlines of "trusting the government."

Historically ignorant. Democrats started:

- Mexican War
- Civil War
- WW1
- WW2
- Korean
- Vietnam

Republicans were the original anti-war party. They led all the resistance to joining WW1, for example. Even today the anti-war section of the Republican party is massive.

Quote:We saw that in the Iraqi War, where despite there being very reasonable questions about the justification to go to war, conservatives were quick to argue that we needed to "trust George W. Bush" because he was a Christian, patriotism, etc.

This is the only war attributable to Republicans, and it was a pathetically small and measly war compared to Democrat history. Do you even history bro?

And how many countries did Obama blow up? Come on man, you're not even trying!

Quote:Look where that got us.

Still less of a mess than any Democrat war.

Quote:Conservatives aren't eager to go to war because they believe in God. If they really understood the Christian message and actually understood politics (and how soldiers are essentially useful idiots for more powerful entities), it would be the opposite.

Try again. Conservatives understand "war is a racket" better than anyone (a phrase from a Republican). The term "industrial war complex" was coined by a Republican, Dwight Eisenhower.

Quote:They are eager to join the military and go to war for self-serving purposes.

Has never been the case for 90% of Republicans. Maybe some fat-cat generals, but for the common man no fucking way.

Quote:

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  - Do far more to promote families (which is the bedrock of civilization, because they believe in God)

Simply not the case. Atheists (generally liberals) have a lower divorce rate than so-called Christians.

Because atheists have lower marriage rates. Fewer marriages mean less chances for divorces. They also have far fewer children, and are more likely to be obese shut-ins.

Can't say anyone is too eager to join the atheist crowd nowadays.

Quote:

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Meanwhile for every Liberal helping the poor or working on some invention, there are 1000 liberals sucking up taxpayer money and blowing it on drugs and booze. Most liberals are selfish hedonists, conservatives aren't even close by comparison.

Show me your source, so that I know that you didn't make up this statistic.

http://www.ibtimes.com/charitable-giving...us-1700059

^ Plenty of info in there.

Not only that, but where is all the degeneracy located? Blue cities, 100% of the time. Vegas, NYC, San Faggito.

The stereotypes of Libs and Conserves exist for a reason... because it's all true. I've seen it 1 million times personally, and the stats back me up as well.

Post: #23

(07-14-2017 02:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  Simply not the case. Atheists (generally liberals) have a lower divorce rate than so-called Christians.

Simply not the case indeed:

"28. For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (adults making less than $20,000
annually) (39 percent), Baby Boomers (38 percent), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38 percent), African-Americans (36 percent), and people who consider themselves
to be liberal on social and political matters (37 percent).29. Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28 percent), evangelicals (26 percent),
upscale adults (adults making more than $75000 annually) (22 percent), Asians (20 percent) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and
political matters (28%)."

You might want to check the stats next time before making a claim.

Post: #24

(07-14-2017 08:15 PM)Nalka Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 02:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  Simply not the case. Atheists (generally liberals) have a lower divorce rate than so-called Christians.

Simply not the case indeed:

"28. For instance, the groups with the most prolific experience of marriage ending in divorce are downscale adults (adults making less than $20,000
annually) (39 percent), Baby Boomers (38 percent), those aligned with a non-Christian faith (38 percent), African-Americans (36 percent), and people who consider themselves
to be liberal on social and political matters (37 percent).29. Among the population segments with the lowest likelihood of having been divorced subsequent to marriage are Catholics (28 percent), evangelicals (26 percent),
upscale adults (adults making more than $75000 annually) (22 percent), Asians (20 percent) and those who deem themselves to be conservative on social and
political matters (28%)."

You might want to check the stats next time before making a claim.

Perhaps you should.

Divorce Rates For Atheist Among The Lowest In The Nation

Quote:Conservative Christians of all types, evangelical as well as Catholic, tend to link their conservative brand of their religion with proper moral behavior. By far the most popular context is marriage: they claim that a good, solid marriage is only possible when people acknowledge conservative Christianity's claims about the nature of marriage and gender roles. So why is it that Christian marriages, and especially conservative Christian marriages, end in divorce more often than atheist marriages?

Study: Atheists Get Divorced Less Than Deeply Religious Couples

Quote:According to a study conducted by the Barna Research Group, divorce rates are higher among “Bible-believing” Baptists and nondenominational Christians. Divorce rates are lower among the more liberal Methodists, and even lower among atheists.

The study surveyed a total of 3,854 people living in different parts of the United States and found that divorce rates were highest among conservative couples.

U.S. divorce rates for various faith
groups, age groups, & geographic areas

Post: #25

@ Samseau, for all intents an purposes, there is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans. On major issues, they all agree. Pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-big business etc. Behind the curtains they are all high-fiving each other and sending their kids to the same private schools. It makes no sense to nitpick and try to pin which war was started by what party.