I worshiped a cunt-tree once. Must have been around 6-6. Then she left town.

(November 28, 2016 at 8:15 am)Cobainism Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 8:07 am)chimp3 Wrote: You are very confused!

No. Its clearly part of the new left's policy which stems from Herbert Marcuse the father of the new left from Frankfurt School in the 50s that was formed as the new left during vietnam war in 60s and 70s in colleges and universities.

From wikipedia it says
"The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of educators, agitators and others who sought to implement a broad range of reforms on issues such as civil rights, gay rights, abortion, gender roles, and drugs,[2] in contrast to earlier leftist or Marxist movements that had taken a more vanguardist approach to social justice and focused mostly on labor unionization and questions of social class."

Your worship of Cobain and adherence to far right politics is the basis for me referring to you as confused. Confused as in mixed up, possibly drug addled.

(November 28, 2016 at 8:19 am)chimp3 Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 8:15 am)Cobainism Wrote: No. Its clearly part of the new left's policy which stems from Herbert Marcuse the father of the new left from Frankfurt School in the 50s that was formed as the new left during vietnam war in 60s and 70s in colleges and universities.

From wikipedia it says
"The New Left was a broad political movement mainly in the 1960s and 1970s consisting of educators, agitators and others who sought to implement a broad range of reforms on issues such as civil rights, gay rights, abortion, gender roles, and drugs,[2] in contrast to earlier leftist or Marxist movements that had taken a more vanguardist approach to social justice and focused mostly on labor unionization and questions of social class."

Your worship of Cobain and adherence to far right politics is the basis for me referring to you as confused. Confused as in mixed up, possibly drug addled.

Oh i am not supporting drugs. Even though Kurt Cobain was on it usually , but then again he didn't recommend it or anything to minors. It should be banned in my views.

(November 28, 2016 at 8:23 am)Cobainism Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 8:19 am)chimp3 Wrote: Your worship of Cobain and adherence to far right politics is the basis for me referring to you as confused. Confused as in mixed up, possibly drug addled.

Oh i am not supporting drugs. Even though Kurt Cobain was on it usually , but then again he didn't recommend it or anything to minors. It should be banned in my views.

The more you express your ideas the less credible you appear.

(November 28, 2016 at 7:15 am)Cobainism Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 6:58 am)robvalue Wrote: Where are these people who worship a country? I don't think I've ever met one.

I believe having elected officials is generally a good idea, as the public often don't understand enough to make wise decisions in all matters. Does that make me one of these?

Well so much for respecting what people want.

But yes, you would be defined as one .

Corporate elitists are the worst cancer though. EU bureaucracy just to mention one example

How am I not respecting that? Everyone still gets a say. It's far from a perfect system but it's the best one I'm aware of. Do you have a practical alternative in mind? You've defined most of the world under this banner, excluding those in dictatorships.

Nice Orwellian Doublespeak asshole.

If you want state worship try North Korea dumbass.

"Atheist" DOES NOT equate to blind worship of the state. I fucking hate assholes who try to make everything an either/or proposition.

HOW ABOUT THE THIRD OPTION?

BLIND WORSHIP IS BULLSHIT, be it of a religion or a state. THAT is what we have in the west dumbass, value of common law, not blind loyalty.

North Korea is worship of the state. BUT so are the theocracies of Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is state authoritarianism and state/religious authoritarianism. BUT IS STILL WORSHIP OF AUTHORITY.

Just so you know moron, STALIN and CASTRO were both TAUGHT by theology. And it is a myth that religion left either RUSSIA or CUBA. RELIGION IS STILL THERE.

China also has plenty of religion and a simple google search of Russia or China or Cuba will tell you what each country's majority religions are. DUMBASS.

What we have in the west is FREEDOM OF RELIGION, not freedom to set up social pecking orders where government favors one religion over another, thus "NO RELIGIOUS TEST" IN THE OATH OF OFFICE.

I am an atheist, but if you think for one second because I dont like Ayn Rand's "fuck you I got mine" means I want Stalin's Russia or Castro's Cuba you are out of your fucking mind.

Our western Constitution is based on ANTI MONOPOLY concepts, which is why we have OVERSIGHT and CHECKS AND BALANCES and SEPARATION OF POWERS.

If any atheist thinks that no rules constitutes freedom, that no regulations constitutes freedom, or taxes are robbery, they can move to Somalia where the only ones in power are those with the wealth and weapons. Otherwise pull your fucking head out of your ass. If the rich were the only ones that knew what was best for everyone, there would be no need for elections at all.

Atheists DO NOT hate all wealth, while some can get stupid and value the assholes like CHE that DOES NOT constitute the majority. But that does not make anarchy a solution either.

Does it ever occur to the economic right or libertarians at all that WE DONT HAVE TO BE CUBA OR THE USSR to have things like affordable education or health care?

(November 28, 2016 at 6:05 am)Cobainism Wrote: Statheist
One who rejects religion as irrational but who advocates the existence of the state, usually as a desperate compensation for the comfort that religion brings. The term is most often used by anarchist-atheists to demonstrate to the statheist that the logic they use to justify the state is faulty even though they had sufficient logic to reject religion, implying that they are reproducing the same errors in thinking that they profess to despise in religious people.
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...=Statheist

"Sta·the·ist

STˈāTHēˌist/
noun
1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, yet believes in the religion of Statism. Worships and Pledges Allegiance to a Flag or Country. Thinks voting and the political process is progression for humanity. Casts out fundamentally religious people who participates in “voluntarily” organizations yet forces people to participate in their dogma via the barrel of a gun. Treats other humans as omnipotent “humans” with extra special rights over the ones below them. Feels obligated to pay “tithings” to the religion of the State because of the logical reasoning you were born here. Feels the fallible human race cannot progress without the leadership or ruling class of fallible humans."
Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/10/16/de...statheist/

---

---

I'd need a fucking forklift to unpack all the straw men in the OP.

I believe in "the state" in somewhat the same way that the U.S. founders did: a necessary evil to be used for such good as it can reasonably accomplish but also an entity that needs constant, vigilant watchfulness on the part of the citizenry -- certainly not something to worship or even be trusted, left to its own devices. Since the anarchists/Libertarian-Capitalists can't point to a single successful example of a society built along their lines, their critique doesn't amount to a fart in a gale, as far as I'm concerned.

I should also mention that I don't indulge in hero worship of the U.S. founders or constitutional fundamentalism (as in Scalia, for example) when it comes to U.S. origins. The founders weren't demigods handing down Holy writ. They were highly talented, learned men who would put our contemporary "leaders" (not to mention voters) to shame, but who were fashioning a flawed compromise and making the best of an un-ideal situation. And their efforts have required tinkering (and occasional major overhauls) over the years -- rightly so.

(November 28, 2016 at 10:40 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(November 28, 2016 at 6:05 am)Cobainism Wrote: Statheist
One who rejects religion as irrational but who advocates the existence of the state, usually as a desperate compensation for the comfort that religion brings. The term is most often used by anarchist-atheists to demonstrate to the statheist that the logic they use to justify the state is faulty even though they had sufficient logic to reject religion, implying that they are reproducing the same errors in thinking that they profess to despise in religious people.
Source: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph...=Statheist

"Sta·the·ist

STˈāTHēˌist/
noun
1.
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods, yet believes in the religion of Statism. Worships and Pledges Allegiance to a Flag or Country. Thinks voting and the political process is progression for humanity. Casts out fundamentally religious people who participates in “voluntarily” organizations yet forces people to participate in their dogma via the barrel of a gun. Treats other humans as omnipotent “humans” with extra special rights over the ones below them. Feels obligated to pay “tithings” to the religion of the State because of the logical reasoning you were born here. Feels the fallible human race cannot progress without the leadership or ruling class of fallible humans."
Source: http://ericpetersautos.com/2013/10/16/de...statheist/

---

---

I'd need a fucking forklift to unpack all the straw men in the OP.

I believe in "the state" in somewhat the same way that the U.S. founders did: a necessary evil to be used for such good as it can reasonably accomplish but also an entity that needs constant, vigilant watchfulness on the part of the citizenry -- certainly not something to worship or even be trusted, left to its own devices. Since the anarchists/Libertarian-Capitalists can't point to a single successful example of a society built along their lines, their critique doesn't amount to a fart in a gale, as far as I'm concerned.

I should also mention that I don't indulge in hero worship of the U.S. founders or constitutional fundamentalism (as in Scalia, for example) when it comes to U.S. origins. The founders weren't demigods handing down Holy writ. They were highly talented, learned men who would put our contemporary "leaders" (not to mention voters) to shame, but who were fashioning a flawed compromise and making the best of an un-ideal situation. And their efforts have required tinkering (and occasional major overhauls) over the years -- rightly so.

While the founders SHOULD NOT be worshiped like gods, they did set up, all be it imperfect, good concepts that we still employ today. I do value freedom of the press, I do value ESPECIALLY "The right to petition the government for a redress of grievance" That part to me is really important. While it is not a given that a court will side with you every time, it does provide the opportunity. But appealing to gov to address a grievance also includes appealing to your state gov and federal elected officials if others are not responsive.

I do think however, if the founders were alive today, most of them, even the more religious like Adams, would be horrified at what the GOP has done over the past 36 years.