Why I hate Right Wing Christians

[Meandering Atheist -J-]

I'd wager there are degrees. 

I don't see how a supreme court decision that changes the course of US politics as we know it is equivalent to some college kids running around a false petition to repeal the first amendment.

If your saying that the right is better about the 1st amendment, then you are woefully failing to show it.

The problem of college students is quite a bit more serious than you are making it out to be. The entire higher education system is being corrupted by these students, with most political/cultural/humanities departments having been taken over already. On the flip side, I could say the view of 4 unelected officials doesn't represent the majority republican view.

Democrats talk so much about how great they are for the poor. I'm not sure how much time people have spent listening to the other side of the isle, but the creation of the welfare state, the destruction of the family, these are the things that have been keeping people poor. Democrats have made the poor dependent on the state, unable to get out of poverty and completely dependent on the checks they receive from the government.

[Minimalist]

Whereas the republicunts would gladly let them starve to solve the problem.

Fuck them.

[Minimalist]

Oddly, last night Samantha Bee gave a small demonstration of what a bunch of fucking pricks conservatard republicunts are.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/12/11413090/sa...ee-diapers

Samantha Bee: conservatives think poor babies don’t deserve diapers

[KevinM1]

I'd wager there are degrees. 

I don't see how a supreme court decision that changes the course of US politics as we know it is equivalent to some college kids running around a false petition to repeal the first amendment.

If your saying that the right is better about the 1st amendment, then you are woefully failing to show it.

The problem of college students is quite a bit more serious than you are making it out to be. The entire higher education system is being corrupted by these students, with most political/cultural/humanities departments having been taken over already. On the flip side, I could say the view of 4 unelected officials doesn't represent the majority republican view.

Democrats talk so much about how great they are for the poor. I'm not sure how much time people have spent listening to the other side of the isle, but the creation of the welfare state, the destruction of the family, these are the things that have been keeping people poor. Democrats have made the poor dependent on the state, unable to get out of poverty and completely dependent on the checks they receive from the government.

As someone who's been permanently disabled from birth, I can agree with this.  I can't really have a real job, let alone career because income = the services I rely on to live going away.  Services that I wouldn't be able to provide myself unless I made a lot more money than possible with my physical condition.  I do a little here and there, so I don't go insane, but nothing that could be considered real income.  The basic idea for someone like me is to apparently just exist at the pleasure of taxpayers, with no goals or ambition.

The flip side, however, is a party that simply wants to cut programs rather than reform them, which is just as ridiculous, and more damaging.

I would definitely work if I could keep my services.  Honestly, even if 90% of my income went to taxes to keep my services intact, I'd do it.  Because at least I would be paying into my own care, paying into local infrastructure, etc.  I wouldn't just be leeching off the system.  But neither side thinks of things like that.  Instead, it's either more layers of bureaucracy with no gateway towards self-pride, or people wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water.

---

Regarding the Republicans suck attitude, the problem is that the wingnuts have taken over, and those that are otherwise okay follow the party line out of fear of losing their office.  So, you have people like Kelly Ayotte, who's not completely terrible, joining the idiotic "Obama shouldn't be nominating a new SCOTUS judge!" chorus, even though that's his Constitutional duty.  It's partly an issue of our two-party system, partly an issue of old school Republicans losing out to the frothing evangelical crazies.

I'm hoping for a party split during the RNC.  We need a viable second party.  One that doesn't want to usher in a new fascist regime that may (Cruz) or may not (Trump) want to implement the Christian version of Sharia Law.

[Goosebump]

I'd wager there are degrees. 

I don't see how a supreme court decision that changes the course of US politics as we know it is equivalent to some college kids running around a false petition to repeal the first amendment.

If your saying that the right is better about the 1st amendment, then you are woefully failing to show it.

The problem of college students is quite a bit more serious than you are making it out to be. 

I used the example that you had already provided...

The entire higher education system is being corrupted by these students, with most political/cultural/humanities departments having been taken over already. 

Ok let's move the goal posts and talk about this, entirely new topic... If you have any evidence for your claim please provide it and I'll consider it.

On the flip side, I could say the view of 4 unelected officials doesn't represent the majority republican view. 

You could say that yes, but it would just be your opinion. But the majority of republicans elected the people who appointed those judges. Were they duped? Were those in the majority republican view protesting these appointments?

Democrats talk so much about how great they are for the poor. I'm not sure how much time people have spent listening to the other side of the isle, but the creation of the welfare state, the destruction of the family...

Pretty sure your over generalizing there. What do you mean by "destruction of the family" and how is the welfare state responsible for whatever you define it as?

...these are the things that have been keeping people poor. Democrats have made the poor dependent on the state, unable to get out of poverty and completely dependent on the checks they receive from the government.

So welfare programs created by democrats is what is keeping people poor and preventing them from getting out of poverty? As apposed to the financial collapse that forced something like 25 million plus more people to need SNAP. Not sure if they would have gotten out of the poverty they were just put in if SNAP didn't exist. I do know they would of had trouble feeding themselves.

Here is a good article about US welfare: http://www.poverties.org/us-welfare.html

[Meandering Atheist -J-]

I used the example that you had already provided...

... and you don't think it's a big deal. I think it's a more important problem than you appear to think it is.

Ok let's move the goal posts and talk about this, entirely new topic... If you have any evidence for your claim please provide it and I'll consider it.

I don't mean for it to be a moving goalpost. I am trying to refer to the "regressive" college students. They do a lot of things, and their influence is not negligible. They have gotten tenured, Nobel-prize winning professors fired for bad jokes, and this has a serious impact on what is taught in the classrooms. Overall, they appear to value their own comfort over free speech, like when they signed a petition to ban the 1st Amendment.

You could say that yes, but it would just be your opinion. But the majority of republicans elected the people who appointed those judges. Were they duped? Were those in the majority republican view protesting these appointments?

It is my opinion that unelected officials do not represent the majority opinion. There are plenty of examples where the courts have gone against public opinion, and

Pretty sure your over generalizing there. What do you mean by "destruction of the family" and how is the welfare state responsible for whatever you define it as?

These are some pretty large talking points on the Republican side, and it may be worth a listen. Destruction of the family = changing family. The overall family structure has been changing drastically, with frighteningly high percentages of children being raised by single parents today. Children in two-parent households are generally better off than those in single parent households (more likely to graduate, less likely to become criminals, etc.)

So welfare programs created by democrats is what is keeping people poor and preventing them from getting out of poverty?

Yes. The welfare system is set up in such a way that people will lose money if they take pay increases because the welfare goes away. That prevents them from taking promotions and improving their earned income, hence they will wisely choose to remain in their current position, in poverty.

[Goosebump]

So the system ate my post.

Anyway I think we've been unintentionally red-herring-ing each-other here. I'll just give a last quick run down and then I'm done. 

1. "Regressive College Students": You seem to just be restating your position and providing no evidence; so just going to move on.

2. SCOTUS: You again restated your position and ignored my reply. Seeing as how I don't see any "big stink" being raised anywhere that I can find on the right about the SCOTUS decisions I sighted I'd wager your in the minority republican view on this, not the majority in which you claim. But, it's just a wager, so moving on...

3. "destruction of the family": I understand the talking point. You wrong on this. Here is why:

Blaming single parents for violence has long been a dog whistle talking point of the family values set, since the phrase "single parents" actually means "single mothers," and "single mothers" means "poor women." But now, it seems that some new data from Washington, DC is challenging that long-held assertion... — over the last 20 years, the murder rate in the District has dropped 75%, while the percentage of single mothers has remained steady. 

Full article: http://jezebel.com/5963593/we-should-pro...le-mothers

Rather, it's more likely that (as I alluded to) poverty is to blame: 

Starting from the 1970s, studies in the US pointed more and more at the link between unemployment, poverty and crime. After that other connections with income level, time spent at school, quality of neighborhood and education were revealed as well. Fresh research from the UK even indicates that economic cycles may affect variations in property and violent crimes. 


But most importantly, what reveals the unmistakable connection between poverty and crime is that they’re both geographically concentrated - in a strikingly consistent way. In other words, where you find poverty is also where you find crime. Of course this doesn't include "softer" crimes such as corruption which causes massive damage to people's lives but in a more indirect type of violence. - See more at: http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-cri...FDiOv.dpuf

As for welfare being some kind of trap to poverty, sure there may be some percent like the previous poster where this is true. But by and large this is not true:

And here is where the evidence undercuts conservative attacks on welfare. The data shows decisively that the problem is not laziness at all, but a lack of job openings.There are still three jobseekers for every job opening. In the dark days following the 2008 recession, that ratio was as high asseven people for every job opening.. Surely there are still people who would rather claim welfare than try to work, but with so few jobs available, these people don't make a real difference. Trying to nudge them off welfare won't expand the supply of jobs. It would increase the number of people looking for a job — and remember, there are already not enough jobs for those seeking employment.

Full article: http://theweek.com/articles/449215/does-...eople-lazy

All that aside I don't think your here to argue a point, just to share your opinion. That's fine. After all studies show that facts don't change minds. 

That's all I got. Have a good one and welcome to the forums. Good day!

[Minimalist]

I do not share the same disdain for the right wing that many atheists seem to have. Yes, they say and do a lot of stupid things. BUT when it comes to some of the most important issues, they do happen to fall on the right side. For instance, free speech. Last time I checked, it was liberal college students who were signing mock petitions to repeal the 1st amendment.

The only issue that matters a shit is that the republicunts are helping their upper 1% scumbag owners steal everything that isn't nailed down.

[Meandering Atheist -J-]

Anyway I think we've been unintentionally red-herring-ing each-other here. I'll just give a last quick run down and then I'm done. 
...
That's all I got. Have a good one and welcome to the forums. Good day!

Yeah I think my main point is getting missed. All I meant to point out is that there are, in fact, reasons why someone (even an atheist) would prefer to be Republican. I didn't mean to be getting into each point, just to understand that there are arguably valid points on each side.

[GUBU]

I do not share the same disdain for the right wing that many atheists seem to have. Yes, they say and do a lot of stupid things. BUT when it comes to some of the most important issues, they do happen to fall on the right side. For instance, free speech. Last time I checked, it was liberal college students who were signing mock petitions to repeal the 1st amendment.

Last I checked it was the right who were trying to destroy the first with their "religious freedom" laws, which are an attepmt to enshrine certain strands of christianity as state religion through the back door.