Statistics show most Red states have fewer morals than Blue states.

Here is an interesting article I just came accross. Now, every time a conservative tells me Im an "Immoral, unpatriotic communist", I can simply refer to this wonderful little tidbit of information.

In red states in 2001, there were 572,000 divorces … Blue states recorded 340,000 … In the same year, 11 red states had higher rates of divorce than any blue state … In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers … In blue states, on average, that percentage was 31.7 … Delaware has the highest rate of births to teenage mothers among all blue states, yet 17 red states have a higher rate … Of those red states, 15 have at least twice the rate as that of Massachusetts …

www.prospect.org...

Hmmmmm.........More divorce than Liberals. More teen pregnancy than Liberals. WOW! I never would have guessed this listening to some of the hypocritic Neocons on this board.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Hmmmmm.........More divorce than Liberals. More teen pregnancy than Liberals.

Thats because in the blue states, they don’t bother getting married in the first place, therefore lower divorce rates (or their gay and can’t get married or divorced.) The teens in these states probably use abortion as birth control and their pregnancies don’t get counted.


Not red or blue, but your stats suck and prove nothing. Nice spin though, I see liberals still haven’t learned their lesson about how when you twist numbers the only people you can convert are the choir.

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Hmmmmm.........More divorce than Liberals. More teen pregnancy than Liberals.

Thats because in the blue states, they don’t bother getting married in the first place, therefore lower divorce rates

Umm.....no. Did you see the part about un wed mothers? It went something like this:In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers … In blue states, on average, that percentage was 31.7

(or their gay and can’t get married or divorced.)

Oh my....Is that a bigot minded remark from a conservative? Who would have thought?

The teens in these states probably use abortion as birth control and their pregnancies don’t get counted.

What is this? Something unfounded? Please provide your source for this. I would like to see it

Not red or blue, but your stats suck and prove nothing. Nice spin though, I see liberals still haven’t learned their lesson about how when you twist numbers the only people you can convert are the choir.

Im not looking to convert anyone. Well, maybe Herman Looks to me like my stats show true numbers? how is this spin? Oh, I know. IF the truth doesnt fit the Neocon agenda, it is spin

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Hmmmmm.........More divorce than Liberals. More teen pregnancy than Liberals.

Thats because in the blue states, they don’t bother getting married in the first place, therefore lower divorce rates

Umm.....no. Did you see the part about un wed mothers? It went something like this:In each of the red states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Mexico, 46.3 percent of all births were to unwed mothers … In blue states, on average, that percentage was 31.7

Can you show that the 46.3 were from the part of the population that voted for bush? No more then anyone could show they were from the portion that voted for Kerry. Gee, it couldn’t have anything to do with the low incomes/education of these states, now could it?

(or their gay and can’t get married or divorced.)

Oh my....Is that a bigot minded remark from a conservative? Who would have thought?

It is not a bigot mined remark, it is a realistic remark. How can you have divorce without marriage? The very first line of your post was numbers, not ratios, so the statement was not out of line, particularly when you consider many blue states that were red with the exception of certain counties, like California, that would have been red if not for the bay area.

I am not a bigot, nor am I conservative. I am a Libertarian, and I believe in equal rights for gays, so figure out who you are talking to before you make stupid remarks. What, someone thinks your post was foolish so they must support Bush? How juvenile.

Oh, I forgot......you can't say the word gay, or imply that the gay community had an effect on something (such as the election) without being a bigot. Get a clue.

The teens in these states probably use abortion as birth control and their pregnancies don’t get counted.

What is this? Something unfounded? Please provide your source for this. I would like to see it
Don’t have a source, that’s why I said PROBABLY. Notice I didn't say they DO, I said PROBABLY. Get it? What, now I have to give English lessons?

Not red or blue, but your stats suck and prove nothing. Nice spin though, I see liberals still haven’t learned their lesson about how when you twist numbers the only people you can convert are the choir.

Im not looking to convert anyone. Well, maybe Herman Looks to me like my stats show true numbers? how is this spin? Oh, I know. IF the truth doesnt fit the Neocon agenda, it is spin
You are trying to convert; if not, then what was the point of making the post? Either it was to convert, or it was to start an argument (see: Troll.)

It is spin. Your numbers are trying to convince others of something without showing the whole story, something you liberals do often.

Neocon agenda? LOL, me a necon! That’s just silly. Like I said, if someone doesn’t agree with you, they must be the enemy, right? Sounds like Bush doctrine to me. "If you aren’t with us, you’re against us." Nice job there, been taking notes from his speeches?


[edit on 10-1-2005 by cavscout]

[edit on 10-1-2005 by cavscout]

CavScout, you just earned an above top secret vote, for this exchange with Kidfinger. You destroyed him!

There are alot more to statistics than meets the eye. Hint: Howard Dean was criticised for not having enough blacks working for him while he was governor or Vermont. The criticizer was a black democrat, so this was OK.

Man gotta be real carefull talking about this subject......ready for a shock???

The Red States have more errrrrr....."diversity" than the Blue States?

I don't know.....draw your own conclusions.

Originally posted by cavscout

Can you show that the 46.3 were from the part of the population that voted for bush? No more then anyone could show they were from the portion that voted for Kerry.

It was from the RED states where the majority of voters voted for Bush. The numbers are correct. I asked you to show me a sorce and you could not, so you start with this infantile little ditrabe that entertains the trolls and other various cave dwellers of this board, as shown by the premier Neocon Carseller 4

Gee, it couldn’t have anything to do with the low incomes/education of these states, now could it?

Um.....Well, on the whole, Republicans are a much more economically blessed party. The fact that they have all this money and cant by there kids some morals, or teach the morals to thier children themselves--as they should--is VERY telling. I think money has everything to do with it. People, for the most part, who have a large income gennerally tend to think of themselves above the rest. I guess that these rich red states dont think they need the morals.

I am not a bigot, nor am I conservative. I am a Libertarian, and I believe in equal rights for gays, so figure out who you are talking to before you make stupid remarks. What, someone thinks your post was foolish so they must support Bush? How juvenile.

If you dont support Bush, then why are you defending the conservative numbers that I have shown here? Juvinile? Juvinile is the denial of the above mentioned stats.

Oh, I forgot......you can't say the word gay, or imply that the gay community had an effect on something (such as the election) without being a bigot. Get a clue.

No. You cant use the gay card when you are attempting to give an unsubstantiated rebuttle. Your wording made it sound like you were bashing them.

Don’t have a source, that’s why I said PROBABLY. Notice I didn't say they DO, I said PROBABLY. Get it? What, now I have to give English lessons?

No. No english lessons here. You just need to give a fact or two for a rebuttle, when you have been given facts to support something. Its like me telling you chocolate Icecream uses brown no.4 for coloring, and I know this because of the Ben and Jerry's article I read. Then you come back with YOU ARE WRONG BECAUSE I THINK YOU NUMBER IS SKEWED! ITS REALLY BLUE!

Not red or blue, but your stats suck and prove nothing. Nice spin though, I see liberals still haven’t learned their lesson about how when you twist numbers the only people you can convert are the choir.

You are trying to convert; if not, then what was the point of making the post? Either it was to convert, or it was to start an argument (see: Troll.)

Actually, If you read the opening statement to my post, you would have read just WHY I posted this. BTW. A TROLL makes bassless accusations and cant back up thier argument with a single fact. Sound familliar?


Oh, and Carsellr4, Keep hating..............Keep hating.................

Kidfinger, you are trying to make it sound like the "red states" voted 100% for Pres. Bush, and this is not true, it was a close race. Like I said, if you look at a red/blue county map of the nation, you will see that even in most "blue states" almost all the counties are red. So maybe it is the red counties that make up the high-moral areas of these states. You can’t say, and neither can I, so your numbers prove nothing. This almost feels like a DonG argument here.

Ask yourself if your numbers include enough of the truth to be entered into evidence in a court of law. They do not, because they don't show the WHOLE story, just snippets. A number here, a ratio there, and we have spin!

I don't feel like doing the research to prove you wrong, I don't have time. It doesn't matter anyway; everyone can see the spin, so I don’t need to. It is obvious what facts were left out by the way things were presented, and that is all the evidence I need to call your numbers bogus. Well, that and the fact that liberals have been using the same spin tactics for years, so it is expected. The spin and flip flopping are the real reasons the Democrats are no longer a viable option. People see the lies and are disgusted. At least when the Republicans lie to us they go the extra mile to make it sound convincing, they don’t insult our intelligence, they kiss us before they screw us. It’s quite off-putting what Democrats do, like we aren’t worth the time for a good lie. What, liberals think we are so dumb that we will buy this crap? These numbers have one use, and that is to make YOU feel better, ignorance is bliss even if you are simply choosing to be ignorant by ignoring the whole truth.


As to why I support Pres. Bush.......I DONT. Like I said, I am Libertarian; I hate both of the big two. Just because I recognize crap when I see it does not make me the enemy, just someone who saw through the crap (not like it was that hard.)


My original post may have sounded like I was gay bashing to you, however that is because it is what you expected. You look for the bad in an opponents post, you look for something to attack. I just stated facts, I can’t help it if a majority of them voted for Kerry, that’s their problem. Libertarians are a much more suitable defender of gay rights, but they don’t want to waste their vote, so they wasted their vote. I can’t control who the majority of them vote for, but that doesn’t change who they voted for, and there is nothing wrong with saying that. I will not tiptoe around a sensitive subject, I wasn’t saying anything offensive. They are just people, get over it. Stop using gays to try and make people look bad. And you accuse ME of pulling the gay card? Whatever.



Thanks carseller for the vote.

Well, Cavscout pretty much summed up my argument, just in a more insulting manner than I would have chosen. But don't dis kidfinger. He may be a liberal, but he's a good guy . Although I agree with Cavscout that the stats don't really proove that the blue states have more or less of mentioned things, I think it at least shows something. Us red states aren't on as high of a plane that we sometimes make ourselves out to seem.

Originally posted by Herman
Us red states aren't on as high of a plane that we sometimes make ourselves out to seem.

Thanks for the compliment Herman. This is exactly what I was trying to get at, but so many fail to see

Sorry to burst your bubble people but taking in consideration the statistics used here regardless of red or blue state it shows how our country stands up to morality after all.

For such a country that pride itself of being Christian it does has much to be improved.

My parents has been married for 45 years and still kicking and my husband parents has been married fro 51, I am reaching 24 so I wonder about this thing between liberals and conservatives.

At the end it does not matter, everybody is a sinner one way or another.

I am glad I do not follow religion.

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry to burst your bubble people but taking in consideration the statistics used here regardless of red or blue state it shows how our country stands up to morality after all.

For such a country that pride itself of being Christian it does has much to be improved.

My parents has been married for 45 years and still kicking and my husband parents has been married fro 51, I am reaching 24 so I wonder about this thing between liberals and conservatives.

At the end it does not matter, everybody is a sinner one way or another.

I am glad I do not follow religion.

Good point, but your statement supports Christianity more than puts it down. Christianity teaches that everyone's a sinner, but it's ok if you believe in Jesus.

Originally posted by Herman


Good point, but your statement supports Christianity more than puts it down. Christianity teaches that everyone's a sinner, but it's ok if you believe in Jesus.

Actually, that is the Catholic faith you are reffering to. Yep, there is a difference. Im not a big follower of organised religon. I am a very spiritual person, but I refuse to pay to pray. My wife, on the other hand, is a Christian. Try calling her a catholic, and you invite the wrath of God that only a women could show. Catholics are the ones who can go out and sin and drink and party, then go to church on Sunday and ask the preacher for absolvance. Then they can go right back out and do it all over agian. A Christian does not believe this. A christian will do thier absolute best to follow every rule and law that was laid out in the bible. Christians attempt not to sin so they dont have to repent.

But this goes back to the morals of the Red States. There ar MANY more cathloics than Christians in America, I think that is where the moral degridation and hypocracy are coming in to play. The Red states that are full of Catholics are acting as Hypocrites. ITs the whole 'Do as I say, not as I do' argument. This hypocracy is what is being brought to light with this thread.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Actually, that is the Catholic faith you are reffering to. Yep, there is a difference. Im not a big follower of organised religon. I am a very spiritual person, but I refuse to pay to pray. My wife, on the other hand, is a Christian. Try calling her a catholic, and you invite the wrath of God that only a women could show. Catholics are the ones who can go out and sin and drink and party, then go to church on Sunday and ask the preacher for absolvance. Then they can go right back out and do it all over agian. A Christian does not believe this. A christian will do thier absolute best to follow every rule and law that was laid out in the bible. Christians attempt not to sin so they dont have to repent.

Well, I'm a Christian , and I understand what you're saying. I worded that way wrong. I didn't mean that Christians just think Jesus said run around and sin as much as you want, because you can come to Jesus to be forgiven. That wouldn't make much sense, would it? He says to TRY to be like him, but if you sin, and you repent, then it's ok. Sorry if I made that sound funny.

But this goes back to the morals of the Red States. There ar MANY more cathloics than Christians in America, I think that is where the moral degridation and hypocracy are coming in to play. The Red states that are full of Catholics are acting as Hypocrites. ITs the whole 'Do as I say, not as I do' argument. This hypocracy is what is being brought to light with this thread.

Are there really more Catholics? I had no idea. Those silly Catholics, *shigh* The wrath of a woman! I know what you mean!

Originally posted by Herman

Are there really more Catholics? I had no idea. Those silly Catholics, *shigh*

The wrath of a woman!

I know what you mean!

WEll, first, you have to realize that Catholisism is a branch of christianity. Christians consider Catholics a completly seperate religon, even though it is so similar, the fundimentals are quite different. Anyway, here is a site with some stats for all those intrested.
www.thearda.com...

Originally posted by Kidfinger

Hmmmmm.........More divorce than Liberals. More teen pregnancy than Liberals. WOW! I never would have guessed this listening to some of the hypocritic Neocons on this board.

It's because in the fascist red states there is a much higher percentage of the inbred.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

It's because in the fascist red states there is a much higher percentage of the inbred.

People might take offence to this, but if you listen to all the ignorant hick jokes about Kentucky, Texas, and ohers of the same ilk, it really sounds like a possibility.

Originally posted by Kidfinger
People might take offence to this, but if you listen to all the ignorant hick jokes about Kentucky, Texas, and ohers of the same ilk, it really sounds like a possibility.

What do West Virginians do for Halloween?

...Pump kin

Originally posted by marg6043
Sorry to burst your bubble people but taking in consideration the statistics used here regardless of red or blue state it shows how our country stands up to morality after all.

Exactly what I was thinking as I read this thread, Marg. Keep arguing about it all you like, the bottom line is that this is your country. You red/blue staters are starting to sound like Europe. You are so divided over there and the hate is so apparent that seems to be cause for worry.

If there are more divorces in the red states than in blue, that's not good. There are more people in the blue states. My theory must dead on.

First off, good post's cavscout, I WATed you too.

You are so divided over there and the hate is so apparent that seems to be cause for worry.

That's just silly.

*****Much of this rant is directed to prevailing themes on ATS, not just this thread/Cargo *****

Hate in America is only "so apparent" because everyone on ATS blows # out of proportion to fit their agendas. I assure you that while isolated incidents occur most people in the US don't hate each other over politics, religion, sexuality, race or even over a sports team. The hate is magnified by the media - and like I already said, people that want to use said isolated incidents to "prove" their agenda that - in most cases Christians, are bigots.

We're pretty damn accepting of different people believe it or not. I work with blacks, Mexicans (legals), Ukranians, and a dude from some other country I haven't ascertained yet, liberals, conservatives, Christians, Atheists, a couple gays (not a gay couple), hicks, thugs, punks, hippies - a pretty big cross section of US culture - no one hates anyone else for who they are. I have a pretty chill work environment. This pattern is repeated across the nation with regularity. It's very much the norm. While there are certain areas of the country were people are less "enlightened" and examples of bigotry occur (like in all countries), Americans pretty much let each other be (unless the #ing ACLU finds reason to "preserve" some civil "liberties").

What about gays? How come America's stance towards gays is always so god damned important to everyone? Really?

www.ukblackout.com...
Did you know that: ONLY FOUR COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD PROTECTS GAYS CONSTITUTIONALLY.
ECUADOR protects gays and lesbians under a new constitution from August '98 (Chap. 2 Art 23).
FIJI and SOUTH AFRICA also ban discrimination via their constitution.
CANADA extends protection under a Supreme Court ruling (Section 15 of the Charter Rights and Freedoms, an annex to the 1982 Constitution Act). (Rex Wockner).
Situation of gays and lesbians and their partners in respect to asylum

As is apparent, gays have many hurdles to jump for equality in much of the world, even in the *gasp* secularly enlightened European nations. But its fun to point out how bigoted America is because of the high number of Christians, huh?

I have more to say but it's four in the morning, hopefully I'll get up and add to this in a few hours....this is an interesting thread (sometimes I forget about PTS).