[Nalka]

(07-14-2017 10:19 PM)Suits Wrote:  

*snip

Looks like you just googled and copy pasted the first three things that came up that agreed with you. If you actually took the time to read what sites that you linked to you would notice that they all point to the same study and it's hilariously the same one that my stats come from.



So why do they contradict each other. Simple: mine are quoted directly from the study. Yours have been filtered through organizations with a bies agenda. It's easy to twist statistics to serve a political or ideological purpose. With the amount of time we spend talking about fake news on this forum it's funny that you would fall for just that.

The scam is a simple one. The bies articles take the "number of people divorced" out of context of the "number of people married in the first place". (Christians marry at a very much higher rate than atheists, also sooner) My numbers count percentage of people getting divorces that have been married while your count the percentage of people getting divorced of the total population of that group married or not.

That is not even getting into other issues like controlling for income and length of marriage which would make the divorce rate of Christians go even further down compared to atheists.

Full disclosure, I am an atheist myself so it would be in my interest to push your talking point. However facts are facts.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(07-14-2017 10:29 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

@ 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.

Suits made an assertion during a running debate.

Samseau pointed out a flaw in his assertion.

Perhaps when Suits makes a post you can jump is ASAP to note which parts are fair game for Samseau to refute.

[Suits]

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 02:57 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-14-2017 12:05 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(07-13-2017 09:46 PM)Suits Wrote:  

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."

There's what Christians say they believe and then there are the real motivations for their actions. When I see the majority of so-called "Christians" cancelling their cable TV service, minimizing their lifestyle to essentials and vowing to never buy a new car again and then donating the savings to helping people, then I'll believe everything people say about Christian sacrifice.

Until then....

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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.

Those examples are so historical at this point that they bear no value to a discussion about the modern day gap between liberal and conservative behavior.

In fact, the modern liberal way of thinking was largely born as a reaction to Vietnam.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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?

Yes, conservatives and registered Republicans.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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

Obama is a figurehead, nothing more. Look for the strings to see who controls the puppet.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Look where that got us.

Still less of a mess than any Democrat war.

Another outdated reference to the current discussion.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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.

Not true. Bush's support for his ridiculous war was from Christians who believe that carpet bombing a sovereign country is a good way to love your neighbor.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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.

This 90% figure seems suspicious. Please quote your source.

Quote:

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.

If the Christian community was really serious about strong family communities, the divorce rate wouldn't be over 15%.

Quote:

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.

I'll happily read any relevant quotes you are willing to post here.

(07-14-2017 07:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

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.

Plenty of the people in degenerate modern cities came from red state regions. They may have even grown up in a Christian community, but after witnessing the daily hypocrisy among those conservatives, they wanted to have nothing to do with it and went looking for answers somewhere else.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Maybe Suits could explain why the anti-war left goes into hibernation every time one of their own guys is in power?

Liberalism is about virtue signalling. Liberals occupy ALL of the richest megacities in America. If they wanted to end poverty they could do it with the change behind their couch cushions, but they've never found a problem in this world that's not best solved by marginalising a white demographic and "cracking down" on them for being racist, or middle class, or just plain traditionalist.

Liberals are what they are. How many screaming protests full of wannabe ninjas and mutant hambeasts crying for a violence can you witness before you realise that homicidal jealously and demographic hatred are the only things really driving the liberal political machine?

You would have to blind yourself with red hot pokers to remain oblivious to it.

[Suits]

(07-15-2017 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Maybe Suits could explain why the anti-war left goes into hibernation every time one of their own guys is in power?

The liberal attitudes the Iraqi War breed haven't witnessed a full-scale, boots on the ground war started by a liberal majority government.

(07-15-2017 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Liberalism is about virtue signalling. Liberals occupy ALL of the richest megacities in America. If they wanted to end poverty they could do it with the change behind their couch cushions, but they've never found a problem in this world that's not best solved by marginalising a white demographic and "cracking down" on them for being racist, or middle class, or just plain traditionalist.

At the end of the day, the bulk of people, both liberal leaning or selfservatives are hypocritical.

You've got the "family values" conservatives who are usually just as sinful as everyone else and then you've got the liberals who want to see a better world, but expect that government to do all the heavy lifting with no real idea where the funding is supposed to come from other than "raise taxes for rich people," which is, of course, a stupid idea.

(07-15-2017 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Liberals are what they are. How many screaming protests full of wannabe ninjas and mutant hambeasts crying for a violence can you witness before you realise that homicidal jealously and demographic hatred are the only things really driving the liberal political machine?

The extremist conservatives are just as concerning.

(07-15-2017 05:13 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

You would have to blind yourself with red hot pokers to remain oblivious to it.

You would have to blind yourself with red hot pokers to remain oblivious to the fact that liberals and conservatives are just two sides of the same coin.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Except here's the difference.

Most conservative platforms exist to the effect of "leave us alone."

Most liberal platforms exist to the effect of "gonna git you, sucka!"

A "leave me alone" extremist is not such a big deal. On the other hand history teaches us well what the left has in store for eeeeeeeveryone who's not getting with the program.

The mainstay of liberal dogma is that everyone must be brought to heel because they know that they can't effect their regimes without crushing any outside example that might shine light on their horrid political failings. How can you insist that there are 63 genders when the people in Idaho seem to be getting along fine with just 2?

Meanwhile the conservative regions would get along just fine without Wall street and silicon valley, which in any case offer them nothing but the persistent villianisation and economic gutting of their heartlands via DC powerplays.

As for whether these conservative "sin-shaming" types are hypocrites, it's entirely besides the point. The liberals need to bleed the conservatives to remain viable and the conservative 'hypocrites" just want to be left alone. I fail to see that adultery or theft robs an entire class of people of the right to determine their own political destiny, nor how being equally despicable grants the liberals the right to go Stalin on the heretics.

[Suits]

(07-15-2017 06:39 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Except here's the difference.

Most conservative platforms exist to the effect of "leave us alone."

Most liberal platforms exist to the effect of "gonna git you, sucka!"

And it's a big difference. Provided that selfservatives are not used as a base of support for damaging government actions (like neocon war mongering), it's certainly the less risky position overall.

Liberals, no matter how well intentioned, have been serving rather willingly as a base of support for government over-reach.

Unfortunately, since Bush, and possibly before, both conservative and liberal voters have propelled government budgets into largess never seen before.

To extend government budget is to invite corruption and abuse.

I'm all for small government, but not for the stick in the mud approach to new ideas that conservatives have become famous for being. It's a good role to play when we are facing damage to fundamental and necessary social institutions, like the modern non-traditional family. Not so good with being open to innovation that could benefit everyone.

This is how the more dangerous liberal elements often get their power. Race relations in the US, for example.

The real solution would be to have people in all corners of the political map see eye-to-eye well enough to come up with forward minded solutions that minimize government power, while maximizing productive and satisfying lifestyles.

So far, the government has done a good job of keeping us divided and unable to focus on the real enemy: powerful people with no ethics.

[Samseau]

Quote:

Samseau, for all intents an purposes, there is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Half-true. While the politicians tend to be corrupt, vote and behave the same, at the ground level there are massive earth-shattering differences between Republican and Democrat constituencies.

Do people here actually visit America?

[TigerMandingo]

(07-15-2017 10:47 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:

Samseau, for all intents an purposes, there is hardly any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Half-true. While the politicians tend to be corrupt, vote and behave the same, at the ground level there are massive earth-shattering differences between Republican and Democrat constituencies.

Do people here actually visit America?

Examples? I don't just visit the US, i live here. What differences are you talking about? I live in CT, one of the most blue-pill, liberal-infested areas of the country. And yet it is also safe, full of uber-wealthy people, and has great schools (minus the ghettos).

I've lived in conservative areas as well. Lexington KY to name one. Sure the people there have different political views but overall it was far more similar to where I am now than anything else.

Dudes in the manosphere always whine about places like Detroit and SF being ruined by "muh liberals", but we all know the real reason those places suck and it has nothing to do with politics.

[Leonard D Neubache]

^Another "honest" conversation that liberals have literally outlawed the rest of us having. As such they can wear the blame as a group.