Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Yes, but the most dangerous thing about the right is not that they're selfish and evil- it's that they're wrong. The idea that excessive public spending caused the banking crisis is sheer delusion, as are a host of other silly beliefs, such as the belief in 'trickle-down economics'. They like to see themselves as promoters of freedom, ignoring the fact that large corporations are as much of a threat to our liberty as the government. In fact, they're even worse, as they're unelected and unaccountable.

 

like i said, just a re-branding of "conservative". after 30 years of conservative social policy and of neoliberal economic policies and the failures of such as characterized by the recession that started in 2007-2008, americans woke up and booted the republicans out. the "conservative" brand was pretty toxic. nothing like a black guy in the white house to get people all up in arms again. hence, the re-branding. but the policies of the "tea party" and say ronald reagan or barry goldwater are exactly the same: laissez-faire economic policy, far-right and religious on social issues.

 

Yup. It's no accident that the rise of far right (and the tea party is far right) protest coincided with the election of a black man.

 

I don't necessarily trust career politicians out of that list the only one who has a chance of running is Perry. Wouldn't be my first choice, actually I would like to see NJ Gov. Chris Christie run, another candidate who would help economically would be Herman Cain.

It is a crime to come into the US or AFAIK any Nation without following proper procedure, hence "illegal". Doesn't Britain have immigration law? (rhetorical question). If an employer in Britain is found to have hired an illegal he could be fined and jailed, your laws are just as strict as ours. The tea party just wants the law enforced. It cost far more for social programs for illegals than the economic benefit, however there are benefits to having legal foreign workers no doubt. "Rock and a hard place", I guess.

Tax payer bail outs for Huge corporations may very well be unconstitutional, it definitely is contrary to capitalism. The banks that got the bailout basically got rewarded for bad behavior. Whats to deter the same performance in the future?

If promoting traditional family values has you concerned, well frankly that has me concerned. If it wasn't for that very thing we wouldn't be here having this debate now would we? I'm not very comfortable with homosexuality, nature didn't intend for all species to mate with the same sex. Now unless one has both male and female sex organs it is not natural for Humans of the same sex to mate. Am I wrong?

No such thing as a totally free market. Here is food for thought on economics and politics, http://www.the-privateer.com/ideas.html

No one group should ever totally gain power in any country if at all possible. I don't think a far left Christian group should gain power either. Separation of church and state means that no law regarding religion shall be created by the government. It doesn't mean that a person who is religious can't hold office, that would be ridicules. Why the president has to swear to God is a fair question. Why does a person testifying in court have to swear to God to tell the truth...a little research shows that you can affirm to tell the truth in court...so perhaps the President could affirm to uphold the constitution?

 

i do think that yes, that was part of it, the election of a black man. but i also think these people have always been around. george bush was polling in the 30's for an approval rate, and those 30% will always vote "conservative", regardless of how wrong-headed the economic policies are.

and they're clearly wrong-headed. the facts are that conservative economic policy has only been good for the top 1%. the last 30 years has seen a steady decline in middle-class income. "trickle down" or "supply side" economics have been proven to be a failure for the middle class; basically, wishful thinking economics, as in "oh yeah, if we give rich people more money, they'll give us jobs. no really".

and when i say wrong-headed, i mean that the facts and evidence show that conservative economic policy is only good for the top 1%. all one has to do is look at debt and deficit as a percentage of gdp, percent of the the gdp that the different income quartiles own over time, number of jobs added to the economy by democratic presidents versus republican presidents. i know that evidence isn't something people want to hear, what with nice slogans and all that. but the facts do not lie.

 

Obewan...try some lube next time.

 

In a more serious tone...

Nature doesn't have an intent for anything. That aside...plenty of animals have sex or sex play with the same sex.
As for humans having sex with each other not being "natural"...humans are part of nature, homosexual humans exist and have sex with each other.
What's not natural about that?
Unless you think "teh gayz" are made by some supernatural means?

 

PASmith beat me to it but humans are part of nature so we can't do anything unnatural. You may not like it but you don't have to take part in it do you. So to answer your question, yes, you are wrong.

 

OMG, ROFLMAO

$14.6 Trillion in debt, $800 billion bail out, $1.4 trillion deficit spending...

That Post PRICELESS

 

Double post

 

I've never understood the "animals don't do it therefore humans shouldn't" anti-gay gambit.
For a start animals do do it and therefore it's not even right on its own terms, in addition "animals" is such a broad term it's meaningless, but also since when do we look to animals as a guide to what's right or wrong!?!?

Hyena live in a matriarchal society where the females sport large fake penises and dominate the males.
Hyena are "natural" so that's how we should behave right?
So go on ladies..strap on and get dominating...it's "natural"!

 

i find it interesting that conservatives are all about "freedom", supposedly. until one man wants to have sex with another man, then freedom is a bridge too far (see states' anti-sodomy laws, which were thankfully struck down by lawrence v texas). or, lady wants to marry her own lady friend, then suddenly, the demise of america is happening because of teh gayz.

the day after lawrence v texas was a funny day in the giovanni household. lol. lots of sodomy!

 

there are actually documented cases of homosexual behavior in non-human mammals. but i know that constitutes evidence, which some people are against.

 

Come on, really! I can't take the hypocrisy.

 

Of course it's common in nature to have anomalies, sexual activity is designed for reproduction, so it goes against natures intention to have same sex...uh...sex.

 

This word "natural"...I don't think it means what you think it means.
So gay sex (something that has been part of the spectrum of human sexuality probably as long as there have been humans) isn't natural?
But hitting some small plastic keys to engage in a fairly pointless debate with people hundreds of miles apart is natural!?!
There's certainly some hypocrisy going on but it's not from the people that accept homesexuality as being simply a part of human nature.

 

Sex isn't "designed". Nature doesn't have "intentions". These are both attributes we humans project onto nature.

Your argument also works perfectly well as an argument against masturbation and a man having sex with a woman who isn't fertile, or isn't ovulating, or is menopausal.

 

Or just plain having sex for fun.
And I'll be buggered if I'm giving that up!

 

Interesting choice of words. :evil:

 

Fully intended my man, fully intended.