Any Atheist Republicans Here? Why?!!!

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?

3 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by James Cox on September 25, 2012 at 11:41am

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?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 25, 2012 at 12:04pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Codie L Miller on September 25, 2012 at 11:49am

an Atheist Republican reminds me of a Gay Muslim

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 25, 2012 at 10:08pm

@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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on September 25, 2012 at 11:06pm

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

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Arcus on September 26, 2012 at 4:13am

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on September 28, 2012 at 12:53pm

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.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on September 28, 2012 at 1:03pm

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

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on September 28, 2012 at 1:24pm

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

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James Cox on September 29, 2012 at 3:32pm

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.