• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where do you lie on the political spectrum?

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
YESS!!! SOMEONE WHO SHARES MY BELIEFS!!! :clap even though we disagree on religious views who cares!!??

Hey, not everything has to be religiously related. I'm not going to avoid talking to theists just because they don't believe the same things as me. Yeah, I disagree with theism, but one can respectfully disagree and move onto a completely different topic and have the same opinions on it. Besides, hatred of politicians is universal. It can bring any groups together.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
not necessarily. Many of the more left people here treat them as heroes.

That sometimes happens. Give it a year or two. The hype about Obama has already started cooling down.

But you do have a point. There were even people in my city putting up Obama signs. Signs advertising a political party in a foreign country they cannot vote in. I couldn't believe it. They probably wouldn't even allow Canadian party signs to be put up on their lawns.

I guess it might be more accurate to say, then, that hatred of pretty much all politicians is universal. I bet you can always find a politician that two groups hate equally.
 

shortfade2

Active Member
yeah, thats true. On Obamas 100th day in office A friend showed me a picture online of Obama on a cross...Hes a scumbag politician...nobody cares.
 

Ukonkivi

Member
You know it's pretty bad when an ATHEIST votes Conservative, even when he admits they let their religion influence their politics. That's how inept all the other choices are. Harper is the only party leader with any formal education in economics.
One of the common tactics that Christian Americans used to use against Atheists, especially after World War Two, was the strawman argument that Atheists support Social Darwinism. That believing in evolution and not believing in God is the same as believing in Social Darwinism.

It's quite possible that Reductio ad Hitlerum has been applied to Atheists far more to Atheists than any other religious view due to Religious Fundamentalist tactics of trying to associate Atheism with some considered dirty like the extreme right.

I believe I've heard Bill O'Reilly call Hitler an Atheist more than once.
 

shortfade2

Active Member
What is Social Darwinism?

I hate obamas politics. The best way to have a federal government is a small small federal. With a big military, and thats it. Just a military to protect all of the States. Then the Local and state governments can tackle issues of importance TO THEIR AREA.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
What is Social Darwinism?

I hate obamas politics. The best way to have a federal government is a small small federal. With a big military, and thats it. Just a military to protect all of the States. Then the Local and state governments can tackle issues of importance TO THEIR AREA.

I somewhat agree. I like small government, but I don't think a huge military is necessarily important. Enough to defend, sure. Enough to carry out missions quickly should they be needed, sure. But certainly not the current size of the US military and spending to boot.

And keep in mind the furthest right political party we have in Canada is the Conservative Party, which is still to the left of Obama's Democrats. So that might go to explaining a few things lol.

Edit: Social Darwinism is a BS term invented by some religious people in order to undermine atheism and make it seem like a corrupt and evil institution that adopts policies of genocide and eugenics, etc. It's a morality based on evolution and improvement of the human race through "selective breeding" in a way. Much like we breed cats and dogs. It's a totally disgusting policy and I haven't the foggiest why people wish to attribute it to atheism as atheism has absolutely nothing to do with it. Darwin himself denounced the tenets described as "Social Darwinism".

"Darwin himself gave serious consideration to Galton's [CM's note: Galton is the founder of eugenics] work, but considered the ideas of "hereditary improvement" impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, Darwin was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. He thought that even if compulsory registration was the only way to improve the human race, this illiberal idea would be unacceptable, and it would be better to publicize the "principle of inheritance" and let people decide for themselves"

Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0-7181-3430-3 (Pg. 598) ---- Source taken from the Wiki article on Social Darwinism.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
Our Conservatives would probably be considered Communists in the US lol. I don't mind it, though. Some socialism isn't bad at all.
 

elisheba

Member
It is a sick care plan , not a health care plan. People want to keep living their unhealthy lifestyle but want someone else to pay the consequences.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
It is a sick care plan , not a health care plan. People want to keep living their unhealthy lifestyle but want someone else to pay the consequences.

Of course. The 40-50 million Americans (a greater number than the entire population of Canada) without medical insurance just want to live unhealthy lifestyles. It has nothing to do with the fact they cannot afford it and if they ever get sick, they are basically screwed.

The US has great healthcare, but it has major flaws. Money should not be an issue when dealing with peoples' health. These flaws would be fixed with so-called "socialized medicine". The system we have in Canada is a great one and a majority of Canadians are in heavy favour of it. Including myself.

I note a lot of Republican politicians argue that the wait times up here are so bad *fill in unrealistic anecdote here to prove what BS they are spouting*. And I've noted prominent politicians and speakers say some profound BS.

For example, this one vile woman - Sally C. Pipes - president of the Pacific Research Institute and former Assistant-Director of the Free-Market at Canada's Fraser Institute - claimed in this Youtube video that Alberta has no neo-natal units. That some friend of hers was pregnant in Alberta and had to be flown to some stick town in Montana with a neo-natal unit because there was apparently no neo-natal unit from BC to Saskatchewan.

This is despite the fact Alberta alone has 4 neo-natal units (2 in Calgary, 2 in Edmonton). 2 in the city her friend was in (Calgary), which has a population of over a million people. What utter BS. I guess every Canadian born in the Rockies or Prairies has to be flown to the US, then, and so are technically all Americans...

She also says the reason why Canada doesn't allow private systems to run parallel to the public system is because "people won't be allowed to make comparisons" :sarcastic. This is despite the fact our Conservative party has presented this notion called the "Dual System" where exactly that will happen. And the Canadian people by and large vehemently oppose it. Apparently Canadians hate good healthcare?

I don't know what this liar's point is, but that seems to be it. Canada does not allow that system to exist because of lack of regulation. It would have to impose severe restrictions on the private system so that their standards are either equal to or greater than that of the public system. It's to ensure these companies don't screw you out of your money and offer you shoddy treatment. Canada has strict standards of medical practices.

She then goes onto her friend - the orthopedic surgeon being sued by the Government of British Columbia for charging people for MRIs and the like - and I think she's trying to insinuate how the government wants people to be on waiting lists. She's an idiot.

The Gov of BC is suing him because he's violating BC and federal law by operating a practice that is not regulated by Health Canada. The Government has no way of knowing if he's a quack or if he knows what he's doing. They don't know what his standards are. And he's breaking the law. I don't know what her problem is, but she clearly loves to distort things. Obviously it's a huge conspiracy to put Canadians on perpetual waiting lists.

And the thing about the colonoscopy so obviously ******** that even I don't need to spell it out. It's all there for you to see. So my warning to Americans: Be wary of what your politicians say concerning the healthcare system of Canada. Chances are, it's ********.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

elisheba

Member
I work in a clinic. We have paying clients, and clients who receive free care. There are none that come to see the doctor who are not doing something unhealthy. It could be smoking, taking recreational drugs, eating lots of fat, salt and sugar, not doing physical activity, not going to sleep early enough at night, etc. The healthy ones do not come to see the doctor unless they are forced to - like when they need a school physical form signed by the doctor.
 

Vile Atheist

Loud and Obnoxious
I work in a clinic. We have paying clients, and clients who receive free care. There are none that come to see the doctor who are not doing something unhealthy. It could be smoking, taking recreational drugs, eating lots of fat, salt and sugar, not doing physical activity, not going to sleep early enough at night, etc. The healthy ones do not come to see the doctor unless they are forced to - like when they need a school physical form signed by the doctor.

So are saying genetic diseases, illness and stress from work and school, influenza, and a whole myriad of other illnesses not related to "unhealthy lifestyles" plain do not exist?

If so, source please.

If not, what is your point? You acknowledge that some people need care despite others who lead unhealthy lives. That is reason enough. Why do you insist on denying 40-50 million Americans the care they need? Because you assume they lead unhealthy lives?
 

shortfade2

Active Member
I work in a clinic. We have paying clients, and clients who receive free care. There are none that come to see the doctor who are not doing something unhealthy. It could be smoking, taking recreational drugs, eating lots of fat, salt and sugar, not doing physical activity, not going to sleep early enough at night, etc. The healthy ones do not come to see the doctor unless they are forced to - like when they need a school physical form signed by the doctor.

heh...I hate sports physicals..... "Drop you pants kid.....Now turn and cough while I squeeze your balls into all oblivion."
 
Top