The most frequent posters on this website are so over-liberal. Not that politics has much to do with the fact that there is no god and religion is non-sense.

In general:

Liberals hate the second amendment of the United States constitution, the right to own firearms. Now I am Jewish according to heritage, and what do you want me to do when the nazis or the ku klux klan (or anybody) break into my home?

Liberals like to create victims. They whine and complain that there are so many poor people. So rather than find a way to put them to work, they would rather steel from productive people and give it to the unproductive poor people so they can continue to not work.

Global warming or climate change is imaginary. The average world temperature has not risen enough to make any difference, and the earth always heals itself. I am against air pollution as much as anybody else and the world is not going to turn into hell any time soon.

As for discussions about the confederate flag, I don't necessarily care whether it is displayed or not, and what about jim crow laws and prejudice against black people in the North? A flag is merely a piece of fabric until you check the owners pulse and give them a lie detector test, you don't know what kind of person they are. Just suddenly replacing one piece of fabric with a different piece of fabric with a different design doesn't mean whoever displays the new fabric with the new design has the attitudes you want them to have, is not prejudiced against some people, and so on.

I'm a more of a libertarian conservative than the typical republican dogma, and a small government conservative.

Everything that can at all possibly be handled by private organizations should be handled by private organizations and not the government.

Abortion is fine with me.

I'm fine with homosexuals getting married in the sense that I don't want to be prejudiced against homosexuals. From my viewpoint as a typical person, marriage shouldn't exist because it was invented in order for religions to make you have to get permission from the religion before you engage in man-woman relationship behavior because the religion wants you to have children and teach your children your religion. And you shouldn't have to get permission from a government before you engage in a man-woman relationship and the government shouldn't be prejudice against homosexuals and there shouldn't be such a thing as benefits you get after you get a piece of paper that says you are married that you can't just get without a piece of paper that says you are married. A lot of atheists still think about man-woman relationships like religious people do.

Liberals hate capitalism. They despise people who do work and make a lot more money than them. The more money rich people pay in taxes, the less money they have left to hire people. Have you ever worked for a poor person? All taxes are theft or extortion.

I'm sure there are more ways liberals want to screw up society but I think this is enough for one discussion.

Views: 2669

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Jay, Times have changed. When our nation formed, 85% of the labor force was in farming, now it is less than two%. Then the majority worked in mining and manufacturing, then it was technology and now we are into robotics. With each change, fewer and fewer humans were needed to do the jobs. Jobs disappeared even as the population exploded. We now have more people able and willing to work and fewer jobs to meet the demand. What are we to do with all that extra labor? 

Discrimination exists and so many who suffer being left out. Whether because of race, or gender, or age, or religion, or whatever, the left-out grow in number and with the cheap foreign labor even more of our labor force hunt for fewer jobs. 

Tell me, what are we to do with the excess labor? 

What are we to do about the crumbling infrastructure? 

What are we to do about the growing gap between wealth and poverty? 

Should we remain silent, or debate these important issues and try to find solutions?

Why in the world did you bring up Jenner? He is another wedge issue that takes us away from the things that matter. 

What are we going to do about food production and distribution? 

Where are the unemployed going to get the resources to buy food? 

What are we going to do about the food being thrown out, wasted? 

Lots of challenges! Challenge always means opportunity! 

Your freedom of speech should allow you to display any sort of flags or slogans or symbols you want and our freedom of speech should allow us to protest and kvech our hearts out about it, short of blatant harassment of you personally.

My car insurance costs $4,319 every 6 months. I don't make enough money. Everybody has some reason they "need" more money. I get a raise in pay every so often and it is never enough. How do I know my company can afford to pay me more? Just maybe if the government didn't steel from my boss he would have more to pay his employees. Now who should I kvetch to about it and what difference will it make? If the government didn't steel from you, you could give to charities when you feel bad about poor people. It is imoral to pay somebody more just because they "need" it. The more work you do, the more you deserve.

Do you purposefully only buy from "mom and pop" businesses in order to avoid feeling too guilty about yourself even for the products the big businesses can sell for cheaper? Big businesses often have better supply chain management systems and big businesses can often save money by procuring their products from their suppliers in bigger quantities, passing the savings on to the end consumers.

If the government didn't steal from you, you could give to charities when you feel bad about poor people.

 

The Victorians had a word for social justice, they called it philanthropy. How close the latter came to the former would depend on which side of the social divide you were on. The rich obviously found philanthropy very self-satisfying with the poor probably finding it better than nothing.  Dickens, Darwin, and many more fought for social justice in the nineteenth century with little success against a parliament that abolished slavery only when it was proven to be uneconomic. The people who dominated parliament at that time could be likened to any group of people who’ve ever been part of an advantaged minority, todays oligarchs would fit the bill nicely.                                                                                            

Gerald, good point. 

Why is your car insurance so high? What the hell are you driving? My conscience wouldn't let me pay that much for car insurance but it would let me buy any product I want as cheaply as possible. Some people buy expensive crap and brag about it. I'm the other way around.

As for "mom and pop" businesses I'm sorry to see a lot of them go but I have no guilty feelings about it. Some of them had good hamberger joints.

"Your freedom of speech should allow you to display any sort of flags or slogans or symbols you want"

No, I don't think so. Once freedom of speech is interpretated as anything other than what you actually say it can be declared as anything. Freedom of speech is me telling you what I believe. It doesn't involve flag flying or symbols.

Freedom of speech ... doesn't involve flag flying or symbols.

Michael, the folks at SCOTUS see a more inclusive freedom of speech.

Their view includes, for instance, school kids wearing armbands to protest the US role in the VN War, draft-age kids burning their draft cards, and even women who dance nude.

Just maybe if the government didn't steal from my boss he would have more to pay his employees.

Who let you in on that heart-breaking circumstance? I'll bet it was your boss.

Reply to Michael Pianko, Sunday, June 28, 2015

Yes, we have freedom of speech and the nazi flag and the Virginia war flag certainly have a right to be flown. Does that mean I have to remain silent in the face of the insults? I will protest, even as they protest. 

I am sorry your car insurance costs $4,319 every six months. Housing costs more and so does food. Fuel may be low now, but it is unstable in pricing. It is difficult to create a budget and stick to it as inflation eats up our income faster than workers get the cost of living raises. 

Government takes our money and uses it for maintaining the largest military in the world. That needs to be challenged by the citizens. The cost of elections takes money out of citizens’ pockets and we can’t keep up with the super-rich who buy elections. Corporations being persons destroys a level playing field. All these need to be challenged by citizens. 

You may call citizen protest “kvetching”. I call it using citizens’ freedom of speech. We need more protests and fewer wedge issues. 

No, I do not advocate paying workers more because they need it, I advocate more because they deserve it. Why should I give to charities when the reason we have so many unemployed and underemployed and people in real financial need when the reason they are poor is because of systemic problems. If our government system responded to the needs of people, and the needs of our infrastructure and if wealthy paid their fair share in taxes, I would not have to carry the burden for those who do not care.

I buy from Mom and Pop stores because I get better service, higher quality merchandise and develop a relationship with them that I don’t get from box stores. I don’t do it because I feel guilty. Why should I feel guilty? I know Mom and Pop businesses can procure their products from Fair Trade and ecologically responsible sources.

If there is any guilt, it not mine. 

...you could give to charities when you feel bad about poor people.

History tells how some of that went down. During the years between our 1787 Federal Convention and the revolution in France, some of that nation's nobility spoke of how they felt bad about their poor.

The Prince of Conti and the Counts of Artois, Conde, Bourbon  and Enghien: Let the people desist from their attacks on our  rights, for our rights are as ancient as the Monarchy and as  unchangeable. Let the people confine themselves to seeking to  reduce the taxation by which they are overburdened. If we  recognize among them citizens who are dear to us, we may from  generosity of mind consent to renouncing our fiscal  privileges and bear the burden of public taxation in equal measure.

(I found that about 30 years ago while studying French history. I saw no mention of what happened to those guys. A few years later they might have lost their heads.)

And here in the US  of A, our current oligarchs feel badly enough about the poor to want them to have jobs, health care, education, voting rights, and so much more.

Tom, we see happening now what happened then. Your quote was true of that group of wealthy as it is for our group of wealthy.

If we recognize among them citizens who are dear to us, we may from generosity of mind consent to renouncing our fiscal privileges and bear the burden of public taxation in equal measure.

If we recognize among them citizens who are dear to us, ... That is a mighty big IF. Therein lies the problem. For those workers who work hard, behave honestly, dependably, reliably, and come to a circumstance because of health problems, diseases, injuries, old age, and who cannot work any more, the oligarchs pay no heed. 

We know what happened during the French Revolution. 

The French Revolution, 1789–1799, overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, experienced violent periods of political turmoil, and finally ended in a dictatorship by Napoleon.

We have no monarch, but we do have an oligarchy or plutarchy, a "form of oligarchy and defines a society or a system ruled and dominated by the small minority of the wealthiest citizens."

What are the factors that result in a revolution? I think we know all too well, wealth concentrated in a few, poor working conditions. limited access to health care, education and retirement plans. 

Right now, there are too many poor people who have been able to get food and housing assistances, and more are getting health care. If these subsidized programs end, so ends the plutarchy. 

I would not be caught dead (or alive) shopping for anything at national chain stores that treat their employees like slaves.  There isn't that much difference in prices, and I would rather support my neighbors than some golf-playing son of a son of a rich man who makes "his" money off the backs of the desperate, and lives on the other side of the continent.

So you believe it's right and fair that companies like wmart are allowed to work people few enough hours to ensure they cannot be eligible for insurance or vacation pay? While the company takes in billions in profit per quarter? And that wmarts pay scale is so low they pass out applications for food stamps ? You believe Walton's heirs "earned" their money by working hard and have no responsibility to the workers?
I don't believe it.

RSS

© 2019   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service