Hahahahahahaha @ Einstein calling me "son," appealing to authority (haha he's a security expert too!), then referencing a video game on economics as the basis for this appeal!

This shit is priceless.

Free markets don't make the rich "struggle," Einstein. They change who the rich are. Yes, the beneficiaries of statism and corruption as a source of wealth could be said to "struggle," but to sum them up as representative of "the rich" and to sum up free markets as causing "the rich to struggle" is overly simplistic and completely misses the points to be made on the topic. (Namely, that free markets reward the productive over the connected and the criminal, to the benefit of all.)

You_Fool,

You're referring to things like the Federal Reserve robbing people and government corruption as "low taxes." They're not the same thing. You're as clueless as Einstein.

You're just embarrassing yourselves. If you literally cannot discriminate between "printing money to devalue the earnings of the poor" and "low taxes," are you really equipped to discuss or debate anything on a politics forum? Let me save you some time: No. This is a pitiful level of exchange. I might as well declare that you're obviously 100% proven wrong because South Korea is doing far better than North Korea.

Well, that would actually be more rational than the logic you just assaulted us with.

"and have none of the benefits of a well run state, i.e. good education and health care at a reasonable price. "

The notion that government dependency leads to a prosperous people is the most laughably absurd thing I've ever heard. I really wish I was a Native American!

Free markets result in better healthcare than any state run care. That's a fact. You can squabble about pricing if you don't understand what's wrong with America's healthcare system all you want (blaming it on the free market), but there's no dispute that it offers the best care on earth. The point being, a "well run state" provides subpar health care, rationed, and you praise it.

Similarly, the best education systems are handled locally. Any reference to national numbers ignores the fact that America is not as [relatively] Homogenized as many European nations, and certain delinquent segments of our population bring our numbers down dramatically when measured on a national level. The point being a "well run state" on a national level provides no special boon to education that cannot be handled competently on a local level at less cost and more control to the very parents whose children are being education. The point being, nationalized education programs are inefficient, inflexible, and provide no advantages over locally controlled education. And you praise them.

I wonder if you have literally any bases for your claims whatsoever. State-run healthcare and education are better why, because you say so? You have nothing but politicized studies, and every time I point out how they're politicized you suddenly have no more to say and go away. I'm sorry that I'm more familiar with the numbers that you falsely think back up your claims than you are?

Try to explain to me how lower taxes cause the poor to become poorer. You made the claim that low taxes cause the poor to "get poorer faster." Please explain to me the mechanics by which lower taxes cause the poor to lose money; please explain to me the mechanics by which higher taxes cause the poor to have more wealth.

You go on to claim that two fallacious statements equal out and become valid reasoning. I rest my case?

It's just bizarre reading you guys post because you don't know what you're talking about--you obviously don't care to learn about the topics you have strong views on. You vaguely reference studies you've never even read the abstracts of. It's weird.

Einstein: The WHO stopped doing a healthcare ranking by country because it was such rubbish. Their standards of measure were poor, and their "availability" measure was inconsistent between nations (e.g. not taking into account availability to the poor handled on the state level in the USA, which is the majority of it).

You_Fool: Have you ever recalculated the numbers of average standard of living in the USA without the tens of millions on welfare who're happy to remain on it for generations? Suddenly the few European nations which barely edge out American average incomes including those deadbeats don't look so hot. Comparing national American averages, including this deadbeat population, to national averages of much smaller and more culturally homogeneous European nations isn't good science.

While it's sad that such trash exists (created by, in large part, government), its existence greatly reduces America's national numbers. The fact is, the rest of the American population averages significantly more than the national average including these people. And it's more than any nation in Europe averages. And, on top of that, it would go a lot farther if we weren't a nation in decline being robbed via the constant inflation of the Fed. How's the Euro doing anyway?

Nobody's gonna learn anything from your discourse so long as you're being dishonest or don't care to learn about what you're talking about yourselves.

None of this is a secret. Progressives/Socialists/Communists/Democrats/Republicans all want people poor and dependent on government. This makes them easy to control.

Meanwhile the fed keeps stealing their earnings via inflation (and keeps them working longer hours and retiring later). And none of the above groups says a word about it because they're in on the theft.

The Republicans who object to this sham only do it in jest to get your vote, fooling you into thinking they're the lesser of the evils. That's why you don't know a thing about the Fed; because they're just designed to eat up the votes of people like you who will settle. Even if they get elected, nothing good is accomplished.

As for your musings on economics, I'll wait until you learn anything about the topic to weigh in.

President Obama announced Jack Lew's nomination for Treasury secretary.

This is Jack Lew's signature.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02447/Lew--signature_2447839b.jpg

This is what it will look like on the US dollar.
http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/daily/intelligencer/2013/01/09/09-jack-lew-signature.o.jpg/a_560x375.jpg

Somebody's [clucking] with us. This has to be the result of a bet. They know they can get away with anything, so they're doing just that for fun. What's more fun than ripping off the American people for trillions of dollars? Printing mockery on the dollars themselves! "Hey, our Treasury secretary can't even write his own name, but he's in charge of the value of your earnings! Suckers!"

Remember, my friends, that the Libertarian party needs only to get enough votes to garner more attention (and matching federal funds) in order to expose more people to their ideas and wake people up.

Both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of expansion of federal power and spending, and both support the Federal Reserve system of robbing the American people to enrich their wealthy handlers, ie the NWO and the international banks which comprise it. This is a huge deal and it keeps even the working in America from accumulating any wealth.

As the Jefferson quote in my signature is obvious evidence of, this isn't a new threat and learned men have been wary of it for hundreds of years. Unfortunately, in 1913, the globalist elite who want to rule over the entire globe (and keep the working man poor, dependent on government, and thus easy to control) achieved a monumental victory in the USA, the freest nation on earth.

I can't stand the way Libertarian marketing is handled (My formal education was foremost in Communication). But with more members and more scrutiny, I'm confident that it would have a chance to improve. Currently they run a tight budget and small staff. Their ideas are sound, and that's something to build upon.

This is relevant to the topic because the faithful (and faithless) are often torn between Democrats and Republicans. These parties are, by design, intended to offer people with different priorities the "lesser of two evil" options. The uber-wealthy would-be overlords of the globe learned long ago that Americans would settle for the lesser of two evils, and have been systematically getting such parties and candidates elected for most of the past century. Both parties expand federal power and spending and reduce individual rights, often including religious liberty. Neither offers a choice in this regard, only the promise that they're not as bad as the other guys on X, Y, and Z topics.

That's why the faithful (and faithless) should vote Libertarian. Because if you believe in gay marriage, Libertarians are for you: They don't want the federal government involved in your personal relationships. You can marry whoever or whatever you want! If you believe the definition of marriage should not be expanded to include homosexual relationships, Libertarians are for you: You can choose not to acknowledge or associate with homosexual "marriage" in any way. Libertarians aren't into indoctrinating your children to have or approve of any set of values. That's your job as a parent.

The Libertarian position on matters of religion is like what good parents teach their children at a young age: If it's not your business, keep your hands to yourself and everyone will get along just fine. This works out shockingly well for everyone who doesn't desire to reign over others.

Captain Apollo,

I'm confused by Christians being uncomfortable with Romney on account of his religion. While I think Mormons are crazy, I don't see why his religion should turn anyone off insofar as he sought no legislative nor executive changes which would impact Christians (or any religion) in any way, let alone negatively.

President Obama is a Christian in name only (no particular offense to him intended; there are tens of millions of Christians in name only in the USA). Are Christians often so shallow as to vote purely on a candidate's religion, even though the Mormon who takes his faith seriously proposes no laws which relate to his religion in any way, and the Christian obviously doesn't take his faith very seriously?

Obama also got more votes from people who never finished highschool or got a GED, [PW2] PICKLE ARMY. The stats are a bit mixed. That was just a % with a college degree. That's not a measure of intelligence. Obama gets both the uneducated and the naive educated who think government should have unlimited power to fix everything on earth.

Alex Jones got angry and was shouting at him about 1776 happening again the day before.

I love how Piers references uses the word "fallacy" when his remarks are full of fallacies.

He refuses to address violent crime rates. He only talks about "gun murders" because discussing actual violent crime and murder rates wouldn't help his case. "Let me ask you this..." followed by some specific example of one crime, over and over and over again. He'd fit in well on this forum. He has no understanding of statistics and what actually happens the majority of the time. He just references specific examples indicative of nothing beyond themselves and rambles about them as if they represent anything beyond themselves.

Every good point made against Morgan goes unresponded to. Every one is met with a change of topic. It's intellectually disgusting. Agree or disagree politically, Piers Morgan is a total idiot. He's a dumb human being. He refers to fallacies while literally filling his remarks with them.

Of course, he interrupts points whenever possible, so maybe I shouldn't count those.

An AR-15 is not a "military style assault rifle." Well maybe, if "style" is meant only aesthetically. I don't know any military members using AR-15s. They prefer select-fire.

Piers Morgan is not a rational human being. He should be deported for being a mentally ill person engaged in treason. He's seeking subversion of American law.

It seems to upset you that atheists trend toward big government support. So what?

People with no values have no genuine relationships "of the good," as Plato would say, and raise really terrible children. With spouses who don't really care about them.

Sounds like a pretty shallow and lonely way to live.

You should never have pointed out the tendency of atheists to raise laws to a position of absolute authority. What this means is lost on some. That the tendency of atheists to vote big-government is evidence of this is lost on some.

Unless you're going to disagree with a word I said or otherwise find fault with it, I'm not going to entertain your nonsensical ramblings further.

You're lying about what you posted. I'm not going to assume anyone else here is so illiterate as to need repeated quotation of how this is obviously true. The only person you're trying to convince is yourself.

Unless you have a reason to suspect that new faithless do not share the voting trends of longer-term faithless, my stated statistic which fascinates me relates directly to the OP. Rambling as if this is not true is just more spam. You're just lying and equivocating in a feeble attempt to mask the embarrassing posts where you demonstrated that you could not discriminate between correlation and causation.

"I thought you don't need to be smart to get the irony. My bad. But again, I explained it afterwards, both the irony and my opinion, that should suffice."

You obviously don't know what the word "irony" means.

Irony. Noun. "The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect."

You see, by stating that atheists do not support Sharia-based laws, you're stating a true fact. It literally is not and cannot be "ironic." This is just a matter of you not knowing what the word means. It's a fact. Yet, you persist in your ramblings. You explained nothing except that you don't know what various words mean and will ramble at length to deny this.

It's obvious that you misinterpreted The Yell's point that many atheists elevate law to ultimate, or "sacred," authority. It's obvious that you referred to atheists' universal rejection of Sharia-based law as a refutation of this point. That was not the sort of "sacred" which The Yell was referring to.

You missed the point. Your response demonstrated this. Nobody cares. There's no need to be embarrassed and spam in denial. It's alright. Learn and move on.

"The proportion of respondents with no stated religion continues to grow, from 8.2% in 1990, to 14.1% in 2001, to 15.0% in 2008."
(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_religion_increasing_or_decreasing_in_the_United_States)

This stuff is common knowledge and I can find plenty more sources to cite if you object to the Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey 2008.

The portion of the population which is faithless is growing. Einstein's citation had a garbage method and it's been refuted as not showing what he contended to any extent whatsoever. The topic rationally shifted to the growth of faithlessness in America and general thoughts on the subject. I mused about a correlation that I find fascinating. The faithless vote disproportionately big government. (You don't understand what this means) Everything I said is true. You're very confused. Please stop spamming.

I've called you nothing. I've explained why I've described your nonsense, spam-filled posts as illogical, irrational, and idiotic. I've quoted you being completely factually inaccurate. I've pointed out that you don't understand that correlation and causation are different things and linked you a page explaining the difference. Rather than click a link and learn anything, you've just spammed dishonestly as if you were saying something else entirely than what you said all along! Please stop accusing me of insulting you. It's you insulting me and the whole forum with this spam.

Saying that atheists don't support Sharia is not being ironic. That's a fact, not an opinion. Saying that you understood the difference between correlation and causation when it came up in this thread (because you couldn't tell them apart) is a lie. That's a fact, not an opinion. Claiming that I've called you names for pointing out that you're lying is a false claim. Again, that's a fact, not an opinion.

More specificity, please. And less spam.

They're not crazy, they're lazy and stupid. Democrats and Republicans have been facilitating this through government policy which seeks to make and keep as many people dependent as possible. Society in general is encouraged by the wealthy owners of news media and all major media to keep people more concerned with football and entertainment than government and the future of their nation.

Of course Obama doesn't think we have a spending problem. He intends to bankrupt us and use the following collapse as an excuse to expand government. When everyone's poor and on government handouts, everyone's a slave under control. They're going to print to pay our bills; the resulting inflation will impoverish us all.

This stuff isn't conspiracy theories. Revolutionaries have published guides on this route to authoritarian communist revolution. Our leaders studied these works in their academic studies. We know Hilary Clinton did. And it's obviously why Obama won't let us know what he studied.