I'm still about as liberal as they come. I think most atheists are either liberals or libertarians for one simple reason: so much of the conservative social ideology is wrapped up in their religious beliefs. If you aren't religious, those social beliefs don't hold much water with you.

As for the economic policies, I've heard Tiberius and his libertarian economic beliefs quite a bit. I would be somewhat interested in seeing those policies applied, but first we need to reign in some of the extreme abuses from extreme wealth. Otherwise, we just deregulate corrupt businesses which allows them to become more corrupt, and the public gets less tax revenue from those businesses which means we have less money to use to clean up the messes they make.

(February 11, 2013 at 9:12 am)apophenia Wrote: Right as always Fr0d0. Now, why don't you go play with the dog. You seem to have a similar attention span.

Forgive me I did you wrong.

(February 10, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Besides, I've always kinda thought of Libertarianism as a centrist position anyway; we are socially progressive but fiscally conservative.

Neither of those statements are true. Libertarians are fiscally libertarian and socially libertarian. They both vary greatly from what is generally considered the right and the left.

(February 11, 2013 at 9:14 am)Anymouse Wrote: My political views tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum, despite being a city councilman and open atheist in the most conservative part of the most religious state outside the Bible Belt (Nebraska).

Moreover, I was appointed to the job, nominated by the Chairman of my village's trustees (approximately equivalent to a mayor), who openly states he hates liberals, distrusts atheists, and found me the "least divisive" of those who stood forth for the job. (That makes me wonder who the other people were.) We'll have to see if that stands up in the next election (2014-I am planning to run for the election.)

Such phrases as "fiscally-conservative" are in fact meaningless, as there is no definition for that, and no one could define it. (How does one determine conservative spending on education, for example, when education is an investment? Or roads, or the military?) I have found those are usually buzzwords for "cut social programmes."

Ur a pinko commie.

Tiberius Wrote:If a company offered a job for $1 an hour, people are not going to take it, since it would be absurd to try and live off that amount (without being homeless of course). What happens when nobody takes up the $1 an hour job? Well, the company is losing money by not having the position filled, so they must make it more enticing...i.e. increase the wage.

Companies now offer $7.50 an hour, which is chump change, and millions of people say "okay" because being paid chump change is better than being paid nothing. And, people will care about a company's mistreatment of employees only up to a point, hence why places like Wal-Mart remain hugely profitable.

(February 11, 2013 at 1:43 pm)Ryantology Wrote: Companies now offer $7.50 an hour, which is chump change, and millions of people say "okay" because being paid chump change is better than being paid nothing. And, people will care about a company's mistreatment of employees only up to a point, hence why places like Wal-Mart remain hugely profitable.

If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

(February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

Yes, where shelter doesn't cost $1000 a month.

Learn to economy, or don't speak on economy

(February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

Much of the world lives without reliable drinking water, electricity, medical care or food supply. Is that what you suggest as the ideal situation?

(February 11, 2013 at 1:47 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: If you can't live off of 7.50 an hour, then you are an idiot. Most of the world lives off of sooooooo much less than that.

Sure. You can do it where I live.

...if you're willing to live in a dumpster.

The definition of minimum wage: the midpoint between a poor person's desperation and a rich man's greed.