Why Does Atheism and Left-Wing Politics Usually Go Together?

[DeistPaladin]

In any event atheism is not as much an issue with me as the radical leftist anti-cultural politics are. Obama is a disgrace and his gentler apporoach of apology and appeasement and snubbing world leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu to get face time on the 'View' and 'Letterman' has led to a foreign policy disaster that includes a 9/11 terrorist attack on our embassy in Lybia which left our ambassador and two embassy staff members dead....re-electing Barack Obama and far left democrats to a second term would be a disaster for this country.

And this is more of the perplexing insanity that comes from the right wing these days.

What policies of "appeasement" and "apology" are these?

Is this where Obama escalated the drone war in Pakistan?

Or are you referring to where Obama successfully killed Bin Laden in an operation that McCain denounced during the 08 campaign as "naive"?

Help me understand when and where he said "I'm sorry" for anything. Maybe he did and I missed it but I have yet to hear conservatives offer anything of substance.

And he provoked the attack on our ambassador in Libya... how again? And please be specific and offer more than "he showed weakness and stuff". And if his policies are responsible for what happened in Libya, are Bush's policies responsible for the Madrid and London bombings of 7/7?

And what would you propose we do in response? Bomb Libya?

---

In true communism, however, the government is supposed to just fade away. Not sure how that would work...

About as well as capitalism if left to its own devices.

Anyone who thinks any "ism" contains all the answers is simply fooling themselves.

Agreed. That's why I say life's a balance. I believe in regulated capitalism with a strong middle and working class.

You know, like the kind we had during the 50s that the Republicans pine over so much, when the top tax rate was 90%.

[Whateverist]

Only just now opening this thread as the vitriolic title was so off putting. What counts as left wing varies of course, but if left wing equals liberal and liberal equals a willingness to question norms, then I think the answer is straightforward. Those who think their way out of religion are more likely to question traditional social arrangements than are those who tend to revere authority. Of course, deciding that gods are a fanciful idea requires very little commonality of values and desires. So in fact, you will find us spread all over the political map except, as DeistP points out, social conservatism since those positions are so rooted in religious systems.

[cratehorus]

Help me understand when and where he said "I'm sorry" for anything.

he didn't..........

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
-Joseph Goebbels

"That in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."
-Adolf Hitler

[jonb]

2) The children of the wealthy cannot live like that forever; nobody can. If you do not have an income, and are living off a large sum of money, you will eventually run out of money, especially if you have kids, and they have kids, etc, and you all live off the same supply of money.

I Have a problem with your argument. The difficulty I have with the above is that a group of people with money can rig the market so that mealy by having money they are in a position to assign rewards, and as such even those who do very little can be in a position to receive disproportionate rewards. So that by attaining a curtain level of wealth, can put a person in a position where in most circumstances they are unable to loose that wealth. This creates it seems to me 'a have, have not system' of rigged markets which will be constantly driven by internal division.

[DeistPaladin]

he didn't..........

Agreed but instead of saying "that's not true", I find it better to say, "Hm, really, I hadn't heard that. Where do you get your information?"

They already know how to respond to denial of their lies. They can just dismiss you. But when you ask them where they get their bullshit information, it confronts their own mind with the fact they've got nothing.

By itself, this won't shake someone like A Theist. He's so brainwashed that pointing out a single lie won't crack the wall of concrete about his skull. However, each little prick will eventually tunnel through his wall of faith.

Place your bets now on which of his canned answers will be his response:

1. "Well, he didn't come out an apologize for America in so many words but he PRACTICALLY apologized when he said..."
2. "OK, fine, the whole 'apology tour' allegation is bullshit but, you know, both sides do it. In fact, I know of one liberal who..."
3. *Silence*

[cratehorus]

Agreed but instead of saying "that's not true", I find it better to say, "Hm, really, I hadn't heard that. Where do you get your information?"

They already know how to respond to denial of their lies. They can just dismiss you. But when you ask them where they get their bullshit information, it confronts their own mind with the fact they've got nothing.

By itself, this won't shake someone like A Theist. He's so brainwashed that pointing out a single lie won't crack the wall of concrete about his skull. However, each little prick will eventually tunnel through his wall of faith.

Place your bets now on which of his canned answers will be his response:

1. "Well, he didn't come out an apologize for America in so many words but he PRACTICALLY apologized when he said..."
2. "OK, fine, the whole 'apology tour' allegation is bullshit but, you know, both sides do it. In fact, I know of one liberal who..."
3. *Silence*

this is synonymous with the religous. Is it not? the right wing is defined by a beleif in social heiarchy, this means by definition they beleive a "certain group" should be on the "bottom" this "group" obviously changes depending on what religion, ethnicty, or country the right winger is from, but the principle remains the same. They are usually too ashamed to admit, who they think should be on the "bottom", so they make these inflammatory arguments, this again is not specific to just America or the West it's what every conservative group in the world does.

The simplest way to find where they get there info from as you say, is to find out what "group" they think should be on the "bottom"

as Hitler said:
"they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces"

[Creed of Heresy]

One thing I WILL say that is a negative about "complete" libertarianism is its concepts that anyone can save themselves, and everyone should save themselves. Which is not true. Live is not fair, and it will not give you a way out all the time just because you think it should/you think you can find one. It will, regardless if it has been given the chance or not, try its hardest to clusterfuck you right into the dirt. People often do eventually end up needing help in some way or another and you can't always hope that you'll have the almighty dollar to purchase that help, and then you get stuck asking for it regardless of whether or not you can pay back the favor.

However, thankfully, human nature will usually prevail here and guarantee that what you cannot do yourself, others will make possible for you, as long as you ask. This is perhaps the only libertarian concept I take issue with. There's a difference between letting someone build up their strength by struggling, and by refusing to offer a hand to someone losing their grip at the edge of the cliff just because you think they'll be fine without your assistance. Human nature was not built on the premise of one extreme or the other; too much reliance on self, or too much reliance upon others, will lead to disaster.

You have to find that perfect balance. Like everything else in life, there's no black-and-white solution, it's complicated and what works for one won't always work for another.

Life's a bitch and then you die. Fuck the world, let's go get high.

[Tiberius]

Warren Buffet has over $60 billion, his children, never have to work, a single day, in their life.

Yet, most of them do, so why do they?

...and some poor families could live off the state but choose to go to work and try to get their children in work. I'm not saying that people tend towards laziness in communism...just that communism rewards laziness.

If you want an example of a country with a successful worker's progressive movement, then look no further than your own.

Evidently you aren't aware of the number of consumers that get pissed off whenever a union organises a strike. Unions in this country are greedy and ruin the economy. Even the Labour party (the major union supporting party) are turning against them!

There can NEVER be a "communist nation" because that phrase is an oxymoron

Wrong. A "communist state" is an oxymoron. Look up the difference between a state and a nation. A nation is not a political term; it's at a basic level the same as a collection of communities. You can have communist communities; a collection of communist communities would be a communist nation.

If Saudi Arabia and all the oil producing OPEC nations, decide to have an oil embargo against the US, what would our nation look like?

As a US citizen, you can buy oil from foreign countries if you so wish. That means the US government does not have complete control over the US economy. Government control of an economy only relates to the internal and internal -> external transactions of that economy. Of course, no government can have complete control over which entities decide to trade with them, but that is irrelevant when discussing communist control of an economy. Government control affects the government's citizens. In North Korea, the government controls the entire economy, fact.

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand Libertarianism.

[Something completely different]

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand Libertarianism.

then please explain. for that is the image i have of almoust every european liberterian party.

[Creed of Heresy]

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand Libertarianism.

then please explain. for that is the image i have of almoust every european liberterian party.

Libertarianism is based on a fairly simple premise: If I'm not hurting anybody, get the hell out of my life and let me live it in peace. The concept extends across the spectrum from politics to society to economics. Unfortunately a lot of people, even some self-described libertarians, do not understand this basic concept and change it around to suit their agendas. Politicians here in the US use it as an excuse for further the agendas of large companies and to minimize more essential parts of the government like education under the guise of saying "small government," which has nothing to do at all with libertarian concepts; instead that is a CONSERVATIVE ideology; that companies with tons of influence should have more influence because they'll improve the economy as a whole. Doesn't work that way but fuck it, why should the republicans start making sense now? They haven't for the last decade, that isn't going to change.

Libertarian concepts on economy are basically of an informed-consumer open marketplace. More competition in the marketplace, more openness of trade and ideas, no government rate-fixing either in favor or against providers, no government protection for or against consumers or producers; the government basically leaves its hands off the marketplace entirely, be it for better or worse. Simply put; "the free market finds a way."