God'sfavorite is most definitely a troll. I'm not kidding. Read their posts.
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
their?
Their is sometimes used as a singular pronoun to maintain the indefinite gender of the noun. Don't try so hard next time.
Try so hard what?
And just who are you GarfieldRepublican? I read your profile and it makes me quite suspicious of who you really are. My guess there is some revisionist history lurking that you are just waiting to spring on us. Now you might be legit, but we'll just see, shall we?
What do you mean who am I? My name- political affiliation- social security number? I assure you I am not a troll if that is what you mean.
Just a little background for you if you ARE who you say you are.
We had a 16-year-old poster that claimed to be libertarian.
1) He really didn't know what he was talking about.
2) He got all his information from propaganda YouTube videos (and offered them as facts).
3) He started a slander campaign against me simply because he didn't actually know that the US had fought in Iraq before 2003.
4) He was obnoxious and eventually was banned.
5) He came back several times under a new moniker and was summarily banned each time.
So I suspect all new members, Atheist/Or not, as soon as they propose a political bent. Especially a conservative political bent.
Yes I know that Lincoln, Teddy R., and even to some degree Eisenhower, should be considered Liberal and in my mind two of them definitely are, but I have had discussions on other forums with people that claim things about historical figures that simply are not and were not true. This usually (close to 100%) comes from the "right" side of the political spectrum.
Your moniker is suspicious as it is political (much like our little friend) and it is an obscure political figure. he was only in office for 46 days. His election was a compromise, not a mandate. And, since the Civil War had only been over less than 16 years, his political affiliation would be at best suspect in its loyalty to the republican party. You see at the time the only way to get elected to high office was to be a republican. So democrats in sheep's clothing were registered republicans.
Now if you are a Radical Republican like Garfield, then you are indeed NOT a conservative or even a libertarian. If you are a Federalist like Teddy R. then you are not a conservative or a libertarian. If you are a Unionist like Lincoln, then you are not a conservative nor a libertarian. So if you are the contradiction in your profile, I guess I am sure to see some form of revisionist history from you. The fact that you called both parties "corrupt" leads me to that glaring fact. Indeed one party is truly corrupt and the other has some corrupt people (bad actors), but the Democratic Party's platform is FOR the common man, and the conservative platform is for corrupt corporations.
I said I could be called a Paleo-Conservative- and I am skeptical of anyone who tries to push a black and white view of the world. You essentially consider anyone who is not a Democrat to be a horrible person. That is not reason, or logic- it is, well, Randism!
I follow the ideas of Classical Liberals such as John Locke or Thomas Paine, which obviously makes me liberal, not conservative or libertarian, though I do have some beliefs in common with them. Republicans up until Ronald Reagan could be considered a form of liberal.
Again, I notice little difference in the 2 parties. You do know Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were best friends right? Hillary even went to his wedding. For this reason I don't do parties, if someone I like comes up in any party, I'd vote for them.
1) Glad to hear that you are a Liberal in the Likes of Locke and Paine....if that is indeed true....we'll see.
2) The republicans party were not Liberal up until Reagan. More like Taft. Taft and his cronies embarked on an agenda that used religion as a tool to garner loyalty and obedience. They also went far to dismantle the safeguards that Teddy Roosevelt instituted. They were for corrupt corporations and against anything that helped or protected the common man.
3) Hillary Clinton was not a best friend of Trump. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth warren also attend Trump parties but they were not friends with Trump. Mark Cuban has had close dealings with Trump and yet they are considered arch enemies.
4) Conservative paleo or neo is the same as it always was. There is no such thing as conservative liberal in reality. If you were a republican from Lincoln to Teddy R. you were a Liberal. Garfield was a glaring example. If you truly are of that ilk then you are a true Liberal.
5) There is a distinct difference between the two parties. Republicans in all their forms have a total disregard for the rule of law. That is a tenet of the republican platform. "If you don't get caught, it isn't a crime." "Win at all cost". That is why they gerrymandered the districts. That is why there is a huge propaganda industry that is conservative. FOX ClearChannel etc...! Sure there have been bad actors in the Democratic party, but the party agenda is FOR civil rights, the environment, the protection of the worker and the consumer, pro-education among every Liberal ideal. Move-on, Occupy, Green, Progressive, and the Democratic party have the same Liberal agenda. Only the speed and the methods are different. The conservatives have only one agenda and that is to destroy government by the people and shift power to corrupt corporations at all and any cost.
1. There are big differences between Paleo-Conservatives and Neo-Conservatives, the former are isolationists, and supported a non interventionist foreign policy, whereas the latter were globalists, and supported a number of stupid wars.
2. What though is your definition of a liberal? It seems that anyone you like is a liberal, and anyone you don't like isnt. I believe I provided definitions.
3. That's what they say, but Bernie Sanders authorized the dumping of toxic waste onto the Mexican border.
http://social-ecology.org/wp/1998/10/the-texas-vermont-maine-nuclear-dum...
I truly believe now that you are who you say you are, which pleases me very much. I told you that I suspected a sockpuppet, but clearly, I am confident that you are NOT a sockpuppet of Friedmanite.
Now I appreciate your knowledge of politics now and historically. It is refreshing. You have apparently studied the variations of politics in the US modern and historic. Probably why you chose Garfield as a moniker. As you see I have chosen Madison. I tend to dismiss many modern definitions of political affiliations. I feel that many are just rebranding or justifications of old ideals. I really think that there are only two political distinctions. Liberal and conservative. Everything else is just a version of the main idealism.
For example in the 1800s Democrat was very conservative. In the 1960s is was very Liberal in some parts and very conservative in others. A Califonia Democrat was particularly Liberal, but Alabama Democrats were far right wing conservative.
About Bernie Sanders and the nuclear waste dump. I think that the article is a bit misleading.
1) Texas had decided to create a nuclear waste facility (not actually a dump) to create revenue. It wasn't actually an open dump.
2) Bernie and other legislatures had to find a place to store this material and researched many sites. The site chosen was the most secure, but still, it was a compromise. It's not like Bernie had a real choice, or that he was alone. It wasn't a snap decision.
Furthermore, my likes or dislikes of a person have no factor in the definition of one's political standing.
I cannot and would attempt to define Liberal or conservative. That would be an oversimplification of both terms. I know Liberal when I see it. I know conservative when I see it. My definition may and quite often can be incorrect and has nothing to do with if I like a person.
That's why they were called the solid south, because they always voted democrat until after the Johnson Administration.
I can get the toxic waste then- though they should have found a better location later in the future. However, I still have a problem with him because of other reasons- among them is an essay he wrote in 1972- in which he said some, pretty dark shit:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/bernie-sanders-wrote-essay-on-sex-rape-fa...
"I cannot and would attempt to define Liberal or conservative. That would be an oversimplification of both terms. I know Liberal when I see it. I know conservative when I see it."
That sounds subjective then...
@Mykcob4: "the Democratic Party's platform is FOR the common man, and the conservative platform is for corrupt corporations."
That's a bit naive, isn't it? Political parties exist for one thing and one thing only: the benefit of politicians. Common men or corrupt corporations are simply tools for that purpose. A politican I knew once told me that most young members of parliament or congress, etc., go into politics with high ideals. As soon as they arrive, they are approached by a senior politician, a mound of corruption, who will offer them a place on a fact-finding mission to Monte Carlo or Paris. The moment they bite that apple they're bought for life. It doesn't matter whether they're left or right. They're all made out of ticky-tacky and they all turn out the same.
The only person who ever went into parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes.
I totally disagree. That is just cynical.
Mykcob4: "That is just cynical."
We must be living on different planets. My ideal world will begin when the last surviving politician has been strangled with the guts of the last surviving priest, and when an ambition to gain public office is an automatic disqualification from gaining public office.
@Algebe
Please understand Garfield and I are discussing USA politics. Even though you have a great deal of knowledge and a strong grasp on many issues, I feel that you cannot fully understand the actual workings of American politics modern and historic. No offense. I am familiar with New Zealand politics but I doubt that I actually understand it. I would make a common mistake of assuming it were exactly like Australian politics.
@Mykcob4: "Please understand Garfield and I are discussing USA politics."
And when was American politics last a matter just for Americans? Believe me, when you elect a moron or lunatic as president (and I'm not just referring to the present incumbent), we are all profoundly affected. Everyday I translate papers written by Japanese economists trying to understand what's happening in America, who voted for whom and why. Protectionism and xenophobia in America are real dangers to our world.
New Zealand? Here's one you might not know about. In 1987, New Zealand passed an anti-nuclear law prohibiting nuclear weapons in our territory. (Japan has had a similar law throughout the postwar era, but America has broken it many times.) It was the result of populist politics and really had only symbolic meaning. It was more a protest against French nuclear testing in the Pacific.
As a consequence of that law, America stopped sharing intelligence with New Zealand, a staunch ally that fought alongside Americans in both World Wars, Korea, and Vietnam. During that time, you continued to supply intelligence to your ally, Saddam Hussein.
So if I want to comment on American politics or anything else, I will do so. I stand by my view that both your main parties are primarily mechanisms to benefit politicians.
Exactly- but do you mind explaining some specific issues you have with Trump? I can give specifics-
1. Protectionism
2. Militarism
3. Abortion rights
4. wasteful spending
Among other things, these came to mind first.
From an economic perspective, I'm alarmed that he believes he can bring the Rust Belt and Detroit back to life simply by raising tariffs. Trade makes everybody richer. Protectionism makes everybody poorer and can lead to trade wars and shooting wars. The steel and auto industries have had their day in America. Now it's the turn of China and India. Even Japan and Korea are struggling to compete. Intelligent leaders (political and business) would be focusing on how to make use of the valuable human resources released by dying industries. All I'm seeing is fast food.
Militarism. The use of military force to crack nuts like the Middle East and North Korea will simply fuel terrorism, especially if America does it unilaterally. But then Trump seems intent on destroying alliances like NATO.
I think Trump's idea of a wall on the Mexican border is one of the biggest follies in history. Is he also going to build walls along the coastline? If Trump continues with his protectionist agenda, the wall will be stopping poor Americans from migrating to south to work in Mexico.
Why does Trump have an opinion on climate change? He's a politician, not a scientist. If he has doubts about the issue, he should appoint a panel of real experts to provide him with proper scientific advice. He's preempted that with his populist rants, and it will be very difficult for him to backtrack.
Trump is no fool. He's cynically used populism and division to bulldoze his path to the White House. He's also fooled the religidiots into believing he's on a mission from God. Hence the abortion stance. But like Hitler, he didn't come to power in vacuum. The Republicans and Democrats are so busy scoring points and feathering their own nests that they've neglected huge segments of the American populace. Like Hitler, Trump was able to talk to those people on their own wavelength.
I totally agree, free trade benefits everyone. However, Americas industries are dying because of a high corporate tax rate, which discourages investment. Relatively, we don't even get much out of this tax anyway! That's why we should abolish the corporate tax, as well as most other taxes, and institute a single, simple, progressive income tax.
I oppose militarism as well, though I support a strong national defense, I support the policy of Teddy Roosevelt- walk softly and carry a big stick.
There is differing information regarding global warming, so skepticism is called for. I don't think it's a problem, because carbon dioxide is absorbed by plants, and CO2 emissions prompt more plant growth! Nature has everything figured out- a 20% increase in carbon dioxide should create a 20% growth in plants, to absorbed this carbon dioxide.
"Trump is no fool. He's cynically used populism and division to bulldoze his path to the White House. He's also fooled the religidiots into believing he's on a mission from God. Hence the abortion stance. But like Hitler, he didn't come to power in vacuum. The Republicans and Democrats are so busy scoring points and feathering their own nests that they've neglected huge segments of the American populace. Like Hitler, Trump was able to talk to those people on their own wavelength."
True- .
That is a fallacy of linearity. Plant growth is clearly not a linear function of CO2 partial pressure; just as human growth isn't a linear function of oxygen partial pressure.
@Garfeild Republican: "However, Americas industries are dying because of a high corporate tax rate, which discourages investment."
Another side-effect of that is that the best brains go into law and accounting instead of science and technology. When tax laws are overly complex, the regulatory burden crushes small businesses, while the large corporations, which are supposedly the targets, are able to get off scot free. As Jonathan And isn't it interesting how many former politicians and senior bureaucrats end up as consultants.
"walk softly and carry a big stick."
Agreed. Nemo me impune lacessit.
Global warming: Climate change is a fact. Just ask the woolly mammoths and the people who suffered through the last mini-ice age a few centuries ago. What's controversial is anthrogenic climate change. It's become almost impossible to get objective scientific information. Warming-sceptics are starved of grants for offending the orthodoxy, and their case has been further sullied by Trump's comments. Given the rate of progress in clean energy technology, I think CO2 emissions will soon become irrelevant anyway. I'm sure the climate would return to normal if we could just get politicians to keep their mouths shut.
I agree, we are likely to run out of oil before climate change becomes a threat anyway- assuming it is real.
@GarfeildRepublican:
I don't think we'll ever run out of oil. New deposits are being found all the time, and the extraction technology is getting better. I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the world has never run out of any resource and never will. Scarcity makes prices rise, and people either go out and find new sources, or develop new technologies to get around the shortage. Rare earths are a possible exception, but with urban mining, and perhaps better governance in places like Congo, we should be ok. I think oil will cease to be a fuel and will be used exclusively for manufacturing plastics, etc.
I think that you are wrong concerning global warming. The fact is that the oil industry has been pushing pseudo-science and attempting to discredit the REAL science for decades. I don't think that US corporations are overtaxed at all. If that were the case there would not be ANY American corporations by this time. Free trade only benefits everyone if the corporations are fairly regulated.
Perhaps, but the global temperatures have only grown by 2 degrees in the past 70 years, so we're likely to run out of oil before this become a an issue. Either way, we are going to run out, so global warming or no, I think it would be a good idea to devote funding toward researching effective alternative energy sources.
With regards to corporate taxation, corporations are moving out because of it. Either way though, it is a double tax on their shareholders, and incentives them to invest in foreign companies. I think it would be much better to just tax the shareholders with an income tax- we don't even get much out of the corporate tax anyway.
Free Trade is international trade, I don't know what regulations have to do with it though. I support worker and consumer safety regulations, to protect people from recklessness, but I don't see the connection between this and allowing people to buy from foreigners.
@GarfeildRepublican: "it is a double tax on their shareholders"
Don't US shareholders get credits for tax paid by corporations? If dividends are paid out of a company's after-tax profit, the shareholder should get an imputation credit to reflect that.
I agree with what you say about taxes pushing out business. But it's not the big corporations. It's the small and medium-sized companies. Big corporations can use transfer pricing and other mechanisms to avoid tax. They have armies of the best lawyers and accountants to run rings around tax officials. Smaller businesses get the full impact, and you're guilty till proven innocent as far as revenue hounds are concerned.
As you say, government's involvement in regulating trade should be confined to consumer safety and workers' rights, especially child labor and forced labor. I'm totally opposed to regulation to protect domestic industrlies. I never saw a protected industry yet that gave a tinker's cuss about consumers. Protection makes industries lazy and harms consumers.
I never heard of that- I don't think so... But I was referring to foreign investment, which we need.
There is no shortage of oil in the world. The concerns are not about an oil shortage, they are about a cheap oil shortage.
A thousand times agreed.
I am not asking you to stop discussing American politics and yes it effects YOU directly. What I am saying the nuances are complicated and don't translate outside of the USA.
Yes the USA has made many mistakes. I am aware of the New Zealand ban on nuclear weapons but I cannot nor will I comment on it because I have no direct information on that issue. I happen to have been in Japan in 1987 and saw first hand the protest by Japanese who decried the hypocrisy of the USA concerning the matter. Even though the USA never kept or transported nuclear weapons in Japan at the time the USA did have nuclear-powered ships in the harbors, so the USA was violating the Japanese law and it's sovereignty.
As far as the relationship with Saddam Hussein, that is a travesty. Reagan was particularly complicit in that debacle.
Pages