Come out of your closet and take your licks. How can you back an explicitly pro-religion party that thinks women are second-class citizens, chattels of their husbands and The State, and who favors widening the gap between the rich and non-rich even more?

Views: 3381

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I don't believe in desert (not dessert) as an abstraction. Much as I feel about rights, that there are only two kinds of rights, legislated and imaginary, I think what one deserves can only be defended on the basis of a contract or law. Other than that, desert is imaginary.

I just figure that money is an abstract tool, one that allows a approximation to compensation during the creation and maintenance of human relationships, that involve the exchange of materials, supplies, tools, and services. It could be assumed that the more $$ one has the more materials and services could be exchange for, but how much is enough?   

My physical ability to do work, my 24/7 limits to time, and even my non-infinite degree of interest in 'everything', holds me back from an obsessive interest in money, 'as a life style'.

I spent about ten years deeply interested in 'securities', 'commodities', and managing 'risk'. When I was younger, I could feel the charm of checking my 'portfolio' and buying and selling to optimise my profit or minimise my losses.

Many times over that period, I would talk with folks at stock holders meetings, brokers in their offices, and business owners/investors looking for that next 'big thing'. I even saw a fraud unfold a few times and watched how the SEC checked in.

One time, during an office conversation, the brokers were promoting the trade in South Africa gold. This was at the time when the boycotts of South African goods was beginning. I asked the brokers, 'What about the boycotts, do you care about the people is South Africa?' They said, 'that is politics, this is business!' The brokers were members of a local church.

Over time, I lost interest. It felt like the best in me was not being feed. I was beginning to feel that pull to power, but also the lose of freedom as a direct result of 'management' issues, and the single minded focus upon accumulation. I wanted my life back!   

Sadly, I see the sociopathic, more than the prissy-white-light, reality of capital.

Has Arcus been deeply embeded into the religion of capital, or does he only aspire to knell at its altar?

 

I see capital as a tool, a means to an end, that end being the increase in well being which necessitates the use of said capital. However, just because capital is one tool which does not mean it's the only tool, but it is quite important and difficult to avoid. It's like a saw in the tool shed, how many saws I need depends on what I am are going to saw. The mere possession of tools give me no joy, unlike those with massive garages and sheds full of gleaming tools, it's the utilization I find interesting. (FWIW I have two cheap saws, one for wood and one for metal, plenty enough for the rare times I need them.)

For instance, visiting friends abroad brings me happiness, but traveling to meet them, especially those who live a bit off the beaten track or far away, tend to cost a lot of money. Add to that the fact that I actually hate the travelling bit, the low-budget hanging out and having a beer part of the journey is actually what gives value for money, while the big-budget plane ticket gives me negative value. 

I have a fairly nuanced and distant relationship with money per se, despite, or perhaps more accurately due to, being a thesis short of a masters in finance.

an Atheist Republican reminds me of a Gay Muslim

@archaeopteryx

Here's a point gentlemen, that I haven't heard either of you address, and I'd really like to hear from each of you.

Extreme wealth, in the hands of the relatively few - at least under our (US) current political system - politically disenfranchises the remainder of society, in that that remainder has only the vote, and possibly the capability of forming protest groups, while the wealthy can afford to pay lobbyists and fund political campaigns to influence that laws are passed that benefit them over the less affluent remainder of society.

Comment, anyone?

I agree. The wealthy (and that includes the corporate "person" of legal art) have a power to influence and corrupt others to realize their ends. As you said, the rest of us only have the vote. But voters are subject to the influence of the wealthy, too. Especially the more naive among us.

I think it's known as the "Golden Rule" - them that has the Gold, makes the Rules --

The issue then isn't the wealth, or the disparity, but that the voters don't hold their elected officials to account or form interest groups or even vote. Seeing as I actually am a liberal, meaning I hold the individual responsible and find blaming the system futile when there are avenues open to rectify the situation, I hold the voters responsibility for the failings of politics.

You have the politicians, politics, and government you deserve. 

Romney darkens skin color to appear more Hispanic
MARK KARLIN, EDITOR OF BUZZFLASH AT TRUTHOUT

It's not going unnoticed that in a September 19th interview on Univision (which has the largest reach of news programming to Latino audiences in the United States), Mitt Romney had his face darkened to appear, well, more Hispanic.  As a sharp eye on Democratic Underground noted and showed, there is simply no disputing it if you look at Romney's face while on Univision as compared to his other campaign photos and television appearances.

The cheesy attempt to subliminally try to make Romney appear more Latino, instead of a pale Mormon, was blatantly evident in a surprisingly critical article of the interview in the right wing Washington Times (although it should be disclosed that the commentary was from a liberal blogger).

As far as proof of Romney man tanning it up to try to appear more like "one of them," just look at his wan hands as compared to his face.

Well, then why didn't he appear in blackface when he addressed the NAACP? LOL

Actually, Obama considered trying the same tactic, but since Michael Jackson died, they stopped making PaleMale --

Because looking black, does not make you black. I expect the liberals would suggest that he is the wolf! While conservatives would think he is trying too hard to blend in.  

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service