Happy Atheist Forum

I am both conservative/Republican and an atheist.  Two things which usually are mutually exclusive.  It's unfortunate by voting Republican, I have to support their religious platform of bigotry.  Even many liberal Democrats are religious too though.  It's kind of hard to be accepted anywhere...

Welcome!  I know a few people here who might, at least on some issues, be considered conservative as well so you have some company.  I personally won't vote for someone who politicizes their belief or non-belief (though trying to use atheism as a political selling point hardly ever happens, haha).  I'm fortunate to live in an area where not a lot of politicians, regardless of affiliation, use overt religiousness as a campaign platform.  Hope you like it here!

Welcome, judster!

And thank you for opening my eyes to the possibility of there being such a creature as a conservative, republican atheist.  

Hello, and welcome to HAF, jduster.  Your handle is precisely the same as that of a new member at a certain history forum.  This person is also apparently a conservative.   :| They don't seem to stick around for very long, but they've all been welcome while they stayed.  (Maybe not agreed with by many members here, but then again that's to be expected.  I think there is a tendency for those who profess to be atheists to also have at least a mild leaning to the left.)

(For myself, I have strong libertarian tendencies, but they're constantly at war with the part of me that says the Swedish model ain't so bad.  I think there is little doubt that both political parties in the US are morally bankrupt, and I rarely vote for either one.)

Quote from: "jduster"It's unfortunate by voting Republican, I have to support their religious platform of bigotry.  Even many liberal Democrats are religious too though.  It's kind of hard to be accepted anywhere...

Hello,

An all-or-nothing proposition.

The political parties and the Bible appear to have that in common, which is why I tend to steer clear of all such organizations, rather than eventually having someone point the finger and scream, "Infidel!".

Welcome to the forum. For one, I never thought Republicans couldn't be atheists. I know plenty of Democrats who are deeply religious. Just as many as any other group that I've come across in my life.

Quote from: "jduster"I am both conservative/Republican and an atheist.  Two things which usually are mutually exclusive.  It's unfortunate by voting Republican, I have to support their religious platform of bigotry.  Even many liberal Democrats are religious too though.  It's kind of hard to be accepted anywhere...

One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

I'd say as long as you vote your conscience as best you can, you deserve respect for that. You're certainly welcome here.

(Maybe you should run for office!   )

I wouldn't say that I am a conservative/Republican, but if you lined up each of my positions on numerous issues, I think I would average on the right side of middle.

Welcome.

While I consider myself a socially liberal atheist, I tend to agree with Republicans when it comes to how to handle the economy, the war against terrorists and the rules of interrogation, the illegal immigrant problems, the death penalty, the need for a much smaller government, and how we should be following the constitution. I can't bring myself to join the Republicans, primarily due to the fact that they claim to make very important decisions by listening to voices they hear in their heads. I just can't support irrationality. Then when you throw in all of the rampant bigotry, it just locks me away from a party I mostly agree with. I know many Republicans base their opinions upon evidence, like being against government bailouts due to how this strategy worked during the last big recession. If only they could use this technique to see through their superstitons and childhood indoctrinations.

Thank you all for your cordial welcomes.

Quote from: "TheGodless"I can't bring myself to join the Republicans, primarily due to the fact that they claim to make very important decisions by listening to voices they hear in their heads. I just can't support irrationality. Then when you throw in all of the rampant bigotry, it just locks me away from a party I mostly agree with. I know many Republicans base their opinions upon evidence, like being against government bailouts due to how this strategy worked during the last big recession. If only they could use this technique to see through their superstitons and childhood indoctrinations.

True.  I think some Republicans who run for office are rational, but they have to court many irrational people to receive enough votes to win.  This was the basis for the Southern Strategy, which allowed politicians to receive votes by appealing to fears and prejudices of the racist south.  Reagan, for example, was religious and received support from religious groups, but he never tried to forcefully impose religion onto the people via the federal government.  He condemned bigotry and said multiple times that bigots were not welcome to join the party.

Quote from: "Will"One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

I'd say as long as you vote your conscience as best you can, you deserve respect for that. You're certainly welcome here.

(Maybe you should run for office!  ;)   I wonder if you're the same individual?  

There are actually quite a number of conservative/Republican atheists, but they seem to keep their heads down, and don't rock the boat much from within.  That's too bad, but understandable, I guess.  As you said, the Republican party seems to be dominated these days by fundamentalist Christian ideology.  This goes back to the days of Reagan, and a certain eschatological attitude that he seemed to endorse. GW Bush did nothing at all to change that.  

We've had a few positivists here, most of them youngsters who've recently read the work of Ayn Rand. lol  I think there is little doubt that both political parties in the US are morally bankrupt, and I rarely vote for either one.)

Yes, I am the same person from the history forum.  :D[/quote]

Yes, we do exist.

Quote from: "jduster"The problem I find is that many atheists which are not left-wing, are extremely to the right-wing.  They endorse extreme philosophies such as Objectivism, anarchy, isolationism, etc.  It is hard to find a center-right Atheist though.

Well, you've found one here.  Welcome to the forum.

Ooops, I was typing pretty quickly, and substituted "positivism" for "Objectivism."  Thanks for the correction.

Welcome jduster

I don't see how a party can call themselves conservative and run such enormous deficits.
I don't think the enthusiasm for war fits either.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Welcome jduster

I don't see how a party can call themselves conservative and run such enormous deficits.
I don't think the enthusiasm for war fits either.

Not to mention the intrusion they make upon civil liberties.

I've said for a long time that the Democrats want into your bank account and the Republicans want into your bedroom.  Both intrusions are offensive.  But after 2002, with its massive and ongoing deficits, I had to change it; both parties want your money.

I do criticize the Republicans for being fiscally irresponsible, but most of the debt is the fault of a broken entitlement system, necessary defense spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Welcome jduster

I don't see how a party can call themselves conservative and run such enormous deficits.
I don't think the enthusiasm for war fits either.

For the most part, I consider myself a Rockefeller/Goldwater type conservative, which the Republicans tossed out years ago.
The Republican party no longer supports many of what I consider to be conservative ideals, such as limited spending.
In addition, their party has been hijacked by the religious right, supporting an agenda against personal freedoms, which I can no longer stomach.

Quote from: "Bob T"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Welcome jduster

I don't see how a party can call themselves conservative and run such enormous deficits.
I don't think the enthusiasm for war fits either.

For the most part, I consider myself a Rockefeller/Goldwater type conservative, which the Republicans tossed out years ago.
The Republican party no longer supports many of what I consider to be conservative ideals, such as limited spending.
In addition, their party has been hijacked by the religious right, supporting an agenda against personal freedoms, which I can no longer stomach.

I totally agree.  Without the return to true conservative ideals which act as a healthy balance to liberal ideals, we are at risk of deterioration of our democracy.  The name calling and just plain character assassination that passes for politics now is as bad or perhaps worse than anytime in our history.  I hope Republicans can rescue their party from the hands of religious wing nuts.

Quote from: "jduster"I do criticize the Republicans for being fiscally irresponsible, but most of the debt is the fault of a broken entitlement system, necessary defense spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Come on! Necessary defence spending. The USA spends more on defence than the next 14 countries combined and 11(?) of those are allies! The US accounts for 46% of the world's military expenditure ($1,500,000,000,000 in 2009) so the US spent  $735,000,000,000 on 'defence', that's approximately $100 for every person on Earth!

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.globalissues.org%2Fi%2Fmilitary%2F10%2Fcountry-distribution-2009.png&hash=9b91b7a5cd179e611a770ca096701e39d41e8a7b)

From http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/ ... y-spending (http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending)

Necessary 'defence' spending looks like commercial pigs eating at the tax payers expense to me. The combined spending of Russia and China reaches 10.1%, if the US cut it's defence budget by 3/4 to $184 billion it would still slightly exceed their combined level of spending at 11.6% of the 2009 figures. US military spending is out of control not because of need but because to suddenly stop spending would effectively destroy the US economy.

On a side note Mexico is happily invading the US on a military budget of $4 billion dollars and winning!

Quote from: "notself"I totally agree.  Without the return to true conservative ideals which act as a healthy balance to liberal ideals, we are at risk of deterioration of our democracy.  The name calling and just plain character assassination that passes for politics now is as bad or perhaps worse than anytime in our history.  I hope Republicans can rescue their party from the hands of religious wing nuts.

At risk of deterioration?
If a country elects an idiot, who does his idiot work, and shortly after considers another idiot for the job, things have already deteriorated.
When people are so strongly attached to one party, and demonise the other, we have a problem.
The republicans should have faced such a strong backlash they would have been forced to change.

I just heard Jimmy Carter's name raised again in relation to international peace negotiations.
I wonder how many requests George W and Sarah will get in years to come.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"I wonder how many requests George W and Sarah will get in years to come.

They will both get many requests, George W to stop dribbling, and Sarah Palin to STFU!

I actually favor George W. Bush, though I will save that for a different discussion.

The fact that the U.S. makes up half of the world's defense spending is no more than a talking point.  The reason why the U.S. spends so much is because Europe contributes so little to the war on terrorism and the U.S. has a much larger population than most country, so proportionately, the difference isn't as much.  But, again, I don't want to hijack the discussion.

But I, as you all do, condemn bigotry and dislike the idea of theocracy.

I don't know what it is with atheists being predominately progressive liberal (the young turks kind of "progressive liberal"). It's religious skeptics of all kinds really, not just atheists. You are in a hunt to find republican atheists (Lee Dorin is likely an atheist but has a very religious audience and hasn't declared a stance on religion) and are probably more likely stumble upon an atheist classical liberal (the term used today is libertarian). The fact that you are likely to find more atheists with similar fringe viewpoints to Penn Jillette rather than much more common viewpoints like Karl Rove or some other mainstream Republican is pretty anomalous in my opinion. It's just that atheists tend to not be classical liberals or Republicans, but that they tend to be mainstream leftists.

I can see how Republicanism can be incompatible with the views of any atheist (except maybe fake atheists like s e cupp) simply because of their track record against religion. The Democrats can be pretty evangelical too, but not even close to the republicans on scale or by magnitude. I see that libertarianism in the modern (false) sense of the word is compatible with atheism. Atheists have no craving to worship or believe in an almighty deity that can control everything and prefer independence from such a thing and wish similar independence from a top down leviathan. Sam Harris, who is not at all a classical liberal, commented on how "libertarianism" is compatible with atheism.

Now this leaves us with even less popular fringe political groups and then "progressive liberalism" wherein you want the government out of your bedroom but in everyone else's wallet and want the state to create one giant wallet for everyone in the country. Pretty much Christopher Hitchens minus the fanatical desire to invade and bomb all the Muslims you can find. All I can come up with to explain why so many atheists are these mainstream leftist types is because it's not only popular and kind of natural to default to in the first place, but it's also contradictory to republicanism. If you are going to defy religion as far as to denounce it, aligning politically against religious people seems natural as well. That's pretty much as far as I've gotten with explaining why atheists overwhelmingly are mainstream leftists.

As for the term "conservative", it absolutely does not mean fiscally conservative. This stuff about cutting spending and shrinking the government is Reaganite/Thacherite rhetoric that has almost nothing to do with conservative policy. There are some exceptions throughout history like Robert Taft, Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, etc. but the overwhelming majority of conservative republicans are politically modeled off the Hamiltonian Federalists, then the Whigs, and then Lincoln's party, which advocated "internal improvements", a very strong national government, intrusive military, central banking, etc. I don't think the term 'conservative' is a misnomer like I do with the modern use of the word 'liberal' or 'libertarian' though. Conservatives are in favor of conserving national traditions. In the US, these traditions are government/business collusion, government controlled currency and set interest rates, a highly interventionist foreign policy (the US has been imperialistic since before it was even the US), ethnic separatism, restrictive borders, industrial protectionism, and plenty more. You will this reflected in Republican legislation much more than their platform campaign rhetoric. They are not 'conservative' of natural resources, 'conservative' when it comes to spending and borrowing habits, 'conservative' when it comes to the use of the military, 'conservative' when it comes to pretty much any use of the government at any time. But they certainly do conserve the traditions of the United States. As for Canadian conservatives, they don't conserve Canadian traditions, but rather American ones because they think they are cowboys. It's rather strange really. Religion and the use of religion in politics is also among American traditions. There is just no church you have to pay to according to conservatives.

Atheists tend to be Bismarckian welfare-statists in favor of fewer restrictions when comes to pretty much all civil conduct except when it involves money.

I think atheists tend to reject right-wing parties because of the conformity those parties typically demand.  Every atheist, at one point in his or her life, was a non-conformist, and many still are.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think atheists tend to reject right-wing parties because of the conformity those parties typically demand.  Every atheist, at one point in his or her life, was a non-conformist, and many still are.

Most atheists are fairly mainstream left-leaning. Not my conception of non-conformity. There surely is political diversity among atheists and non-religious people, but I am pretty sure you will find them overwhelmingly watching Kieth Olberman, The Young Turks, etc and either laugh at or detest Sean Hannity or Niel Cavuto. Maybe there will be some Nietzsche mixed in with their left-leaning views, but it's nothing I would consider "mavericky".

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think atheists tend to reject right-wing parties because of the conformity those parties typically demand.  Every atheist, at one point in his or her life, was a non-conformist, and many still are.

Most atheists are fairly mainstream left-leaning. Not my conception of non-conformity. There surely is political diversity among atheists and non-religious people, but I am pretty sure you will find them overwhelmingly watching Kieth Olberman, The Young Turks, etc and either laugh at or detest Sean Hannity or Niel Cavuto. Maybe there will be some Nietzsche mixed in with their left-leaning views, but it's nothing I would consider "mavericky".

All this conjecture amounts to mental skeet.  Let's see some data.

You wanna try looking yourself? How about contributing to the discussion with some research of your own instead of begging for spoon feeds.

Coming by good stats isn't easy, so conjecture and "common wisdom" is pretty much what we have to work with.

When someone makes a claim, do you feel it's your duty as the person questioning their statements to find the evidence they used to come to their conclusions, or do you ask for it?  So...no data then.  Gotcha.  Have fun with your sweeping, evidently unsupported generalizations.

I have as much data as anyone with access to online search engines. There is no general survey I can find that says "this many atheists are politically affiliated this and that way." I'm not saying the burden to provide evidence is on you, just that if you were at all interested in the topic then you could do your own research as well instead of trying to get others to do the work for you regardless of who is making what claim pertaining to the issue.

It is clear that religiosity and political affiliation correlate very well in the United States by state as well as in Europe. Whether you are democrat or republican correlates very well with being liberal or conservative.
http://pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx (http://pewforum.org/How-Religious-Is-Your-State-.aspx)
http://www.npr.org/news/specials/electi ... iew=race08 (http://www.npr.org/news/specials/election2008/2008-election-map.html#/president?view=race08)
check out more miscellaneous stuff if you want.
http://pewforum.org/sitemap/ (http://pewforum.org/sitemap/)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132655.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm)
Here is science daily's little conjecture on why people with higher IQ tend to be less religious and less conservative.

Anyway, it took me somewhere around 5 minutes to google all of this stuff (somewhat longer to post it) and even less time to figure out that these correlations already existed as did almost everyone who is familiar with this topic. It's not a certainty that atheists follow the same or similar trends that people who become less and less religious as I already stated because as far as I know there is no poll or survey that goes over the details that well.

QuoteWhen someone makes a claim, do you feel it's your duty as the person questioning their statements to find the evidence they used to come to their conclusions, or do you ask for it?

First, that would depend on the claim. Asserting that atheists tend to be more liberal is not at all outlandish in my opinion and is similar to saying men tend to watch sports more than women. To refute such a claim requires more burden of proof given that it is fairly self-evident despite most people believing such a claim without having seen extensive studies and statistics.
Second, yes, I think it's every individual's responsibility (duty is a stupid sounding word for this) to do their own research on topics for which they are interested in forming opinions. And this goes regardless if they are asking for elaboration or asserting a claim from the beginning. It doesn't have to be the same evidence the other person used to arrive at their positions either. You can discuss the same topic using different data and evidence.
Finally, this is a political topic where there is a lot of conjecture and opinions are based on things for which we can't get convincing data for. What is often more important is the logic behind the conjecture in such cases and not the evidence.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"Asserting that atheists tend to be more liberal is not at all outlandish.

Oh, I completely agree.  Asserting something like this would be outlandish:

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"Most atheists are fairly mainstream left-leaning. Not my conception of non-conformity. There surely is political diversity among atheists and non-religious people, but I am pretty sure you will find them overwhelmingly watching Kieth Olberman, The Young Turks, etc and either laugh at or detest Sean Hannity or Niel Cavuto. Maybe there will be some Nietzsche mixed in with their left-leaning views, but it's nothing I would consider "mavericky".

Do you see the difference?

I see as much difference between "atheists tend to be mainstream liberals" and "atheists tend to watch mainstream (not-so-mainstream as well) liberal news and entertainment" as I do between "men tend to be interested in watching sports" and "men tend to watch Sports Center".

It's a conclusion that follows directly from the premise that atheists to be liberal. C0ct0pus Prime's "Fuck Fox 'News'" series is very popular among atheists and the young Turks also attract a lot of religious skeptics(and that's just Youtube). It's considered anomalous really that someone even claiming to be an atheist (S E Cupp) winds up on Fox "News" generally supporting conservative views.This is not so much the case on Kieth Olberman or Rachel Maddow.  Compared to watching conservatives on TV and on the Internet (other than for amusement), I would say that atheists overwhelmingly watch more liberal stuff.

Quote from: "Intercourseman72"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I think atheists tend to reject right-wing parties because of the conformity those parties typically demand.  Every atheist, at one point in his or her life, was a non-conformist, and many still are.

Most atheists are fairly mainstream left-leaning. Not my conception of non-conformity. There surely is political diversity among atheists and non-religious people, but I am pretty sure you will find them overwhelmingly watching Kieth Olberman, The Young Turks, etc and either laugh at or detest Sean Hannity or Niel Cavuto. Maybe there will be some Nietzsche mixed in with their left-leaning views, but it's nothing I would consider "mavericky".

I have emphasized the qualifier in my statement for your benefit.

Also, these charts (http://features.pewforum.org/politics/trends/index.html) show that the only religious group which votes more consistently Democrat than the "unaffiliated" [it doesn't separate out atheists] is "black protestant".

Also, if you sort the data presentation by frequency of service attendance, you will clearly see that there is an inverse relationship between deep religiosity and liberalism: those who attend "at least weekly" are more likely to vote Republican over Democrat (52%-41%), while those who "seldom or never" attend show a markedly reversed pattern: 57%-33%.  This shows a stronger correlation between atheism and liberalism than between religiosity and conservatism, it seems to me.

Mexican Catholics also very consistently vote democrat. The southern border of the US is very blue around election time.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-personal.umich.edu%2F%7Emejn%2Felection%2F2008%2Fcountymapnonlinr384.png&hash=fe2358e7fb57e8c89be93ed32c835be93a593b78)

The Black Protestant thing is probably why Mississippi is the only state in the "deep South" that consistently votes democrats into office. Though, they are probably not the archetypal democrats like Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton maybe? This is why east of the Mississippi River along the river is also so blue. Not necessarily an indication of being liberal or conservative though.

Good points, thanks.

Quote from: "jduster"I do criticize the Republicans for being fiscally irresponsible, but most of the debt is the fault of a broken entitlement system, necessary defense spending, and a Democrat-controlled Congress.

I'd hardly call our defense spending necessary.  We have over 700 military bases around the world that are fully staffed...and they twiddle their thumbs.  You could argue that they'd have no where to work if they came home, which is a valid point.  We would have to have a new industry ready to train hundreds of thousands for this idealistic idea to work.  I'm still working on that one in my head...
I think you'll find a lot of people on this board are near the center.  The extremes of any spectrum are usually negative in nature.

Quote from: "DropLogic"I'd hardly call our defense spending necessary.  We have over 700 military bases around the world that are fully staffed...and they twiddle their thumbs.  You could argue that they'd have no where to work if they came home, which is a valid point.  We would have to have a new industry ready to train hundreds of thousands for this idealistic idea to work.  I'm still working on that one in my head...
I think you'll find a lot of people on this board are near the center.  The extremes of any spectrum are usually negative in nature.

Closing a military base takes several years. By reassigning military personal as the bases are closed, civilian contractors on other bases could be cancelled.  The army used to have military personnel perform maintenance, provide food services, manage clubs and recreational facilities.  All of these duties are now contracted out and the cost of contracts is much heavier than when the military performed these tasked directly.

Civilian contractors would have to find new customers or new services to sell, but that is the purpose of the free market system.  In the meantime, our military people would have new venues for service and would also be freed up to serve in our current and future war zones.  This would reduce the amount of people rotating into war zones 3 and 4 times.  Eliminating military bases in Europe and Japan would force those countries to pick up more of the burden for their own security.  

One of the reasons health care is free in most of Europe is because they spend very little on their defense budgets as compared to their gross national product.  The USA spends more on it's defense budget than Europe and China combined.  This has got to end.

Another way to reduce our budget deficit is to provide a catalog of American goods and services to all countries currently getting foreign aid.  Instead of sending cash to these country, they can select their aid from the catalog of American products.  This will eliminate the current situation where our cash foreign aid is spent buying weapons from the French or Germans.

Quote from: "Will"One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

Is Hitchens really considered a conservative? As far as I know he has been a socialist his entire life and has stated (http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/07/conservative-course-presidency) "I am not a conservative of any kind."

Hitchens is an interventionist. He believes in invasion and nation building, and continues to support the Iraq war despite the fact that virtually everyone on the left has given up on that quagmire. I'll have to see if I can dig up Hitchens' debate with Noam Chomsky following 9/11. Back in 2004, Hitchens supported President Bush for president, iirc. He supported torture for a time until he himself was waterboarded, verifying it was in fact torture.

I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

That seems neither socially liberal nor fiscally conservative to me.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Will"One of the most famous atheists alive, Christopher Hitchens, is what would be considered in American politics a conservative  (for example, he supported and still supports the invasion of Iraq). He manages to get respect from people all over the political spectrum, though, in part because he has the courage of his convictions. I would say his being accepted by so many actually helps political conservatism move away from religion, even if just a little bit.

Is Hitchens really considered a conservative? As far as I know he has been a socialist his entire life and has stated (http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2010/07/conservative-course-presidency) "I am not a conservative of any kind."

Hitchens caught a helluva lot of flak from the atheist community for his support of the Iraqi invasion.  In the eyes of the left, that was pretty much an unforgivable sin.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I fall in line more or less with a few of the other members above that are social liberal/fiscal conservative. I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

That seems neither socially liberal nor fiscally conservative to me.

That's just one issue, maybe I have it backwards though.

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

Your comment made me laugh, the bit about everyone who needs aid being either lazy or unmotivated.  You reminded me of this one type of homeless people I used to encounter - the conservatives who had recently become homeless.  Aside from those driven from their homes by brutal violence, they are always in the worst shock of any recently homeless people.  They still believe that being poor is caused by being stupid or lazy or bad people and they suffer a large amount of cognitive dissonance on the subject.  Then, they usually come to the conclusion that they are the only hard-working person to become homeless, that their situation is different and unique when it's actually common as dirt.  They have the most demands and complaints, too.

Quote from: "Kylyssa"

Quote from: "DJAkuma"I feel that punishing the successful and rewarding the lazy or unmotivated is not a good way to run or improve a society.

Your comment made me laugh, the bit about everyone who needs aid being either lazy or unmotivated.  You reminded me of this one type of homeless people I used to encounter - the conservatives who had recently become homeless.  Aside from those driven from their homes by brutal violence, they are always in the worst shock of any recently homeless people.  They still believe that being poor is caused by being stupid or lazy or bad people and they suffer a large amount of cognitive dissonance on the subject.  Then, they usually come to the conclusion that they are the only hard-working person to become homeless, that their situation is different and unique when it's actually common as dirt.  They have the most demands and complaints, too.

I wasn't really referring to aid or state assistance, I was thinking more about taxation.

Quote from: "jduster"I am both conservative/Republican and an atheist.  Two things which usually are mutually exclusive.  It's unfortunate by voting Republican, I have to support their religious platform of bigotry.  Even many liberal Democrats are religious too though.  It's kind of hard to be accepted anywhere...

I realize I am weighing in late in the game, but I could have written your post about myself.

There is another bird wherewith to flock.