If by “Left”, you mean Democrats, I would say yes, since they get more votes that the Republicans just about every election.
In this country people don’t vote for, they vote against.
-Will Rogers
Meaning the GOP doesn’t get people to vote big bonuses for bank owners, they adopt the mushroom farmers tactic: keep them in the dark and feed them on bullshit. The Left expects its good ideas to sell themselves
I think that it is more an issue of moral hazard for some people. If we begin with the general impression that there are a certain sort of people who we just fundamentally recognized as bad, then spending money to help those people is a bad use of money because it encourages their shiftless ways while spending money to punish those people is a good use of money since it might straighten them out. Of course the main attribute that distinguishes the “bad people” is their lack of money and the melanin content of their skin, which incarceration is unlikely to change.
That’s not true. Conservatives believe there are plenty of people who are bad because of their sexual orientation or their political ideology.
Don’t forget, the more conservative they are, the more likely they also believe being Jewish or Catholic is bad. Islam and Atheist go without saying.
Sure, but the better “jail than welfare” argument is primarily directed at the poor people of color component of the enemies list.
I said above that the Reagan legacy is Republican leaders telling lies to Republican voters. But there’s also the Murdoch/Ailes legacy. Which is that you can tell any lies and be believed as long as you control what people hear.
To a certain mindset, Judaism, Catholicism, Islam, and Hindu Atheism are not religions. They are political conspiracies against the only real religion, which is conservative Christianity.
As usual, Reagan’s version does not square with facts:
The two great lies of business: “Hi, we’re from Corporate and we’re here to help you.”
And the second is like unto it: “And we’re glad to see you.”
There’s also a sort of… resentment(?- that’s sure what it’s always sounded like to me) that something like midnight basketball has to be funded out of their tax money in the first place, and a thinly veiled idea that the money could be better spent on something else, if only “those people” would get their collective acts together.
It’s slightly more subtle than just outright hate/disdain/annoyance with groups they don’t like; it’s always framed as a tradeoff of having to do special expensive treatment for one group, versus spending that money on something that could benefit everyone.
And then others will say that they are religions, but not the creed that they personally follow, which isn’t a religion because it’s a personal relationship with Christ.
I’m an atheist but I can try to understand the viewpoint of a religious believer. I can see how the idea of religious equality might upset such a person. If I believe in a religion, I am pretty much believing that it is the one true religion and all other religions are false.
So when I think about people who profess other religious faiths, it’s possible I will consider that they believe in their own religions just as I believe in mine. But adopting this viewpoint can cause problems for me. If I acknowledge that these other people sincerely believe that their religions are true, then I have to acknowledge that sincere belief is not proof that a religion is true. And at this point I am probably going to consider my own sincere belief in my religion and wonder if my religion is true. And that would be uncomfortable for me. The very fact that these sincere believers in other religions exist undermines my own religious belief.
The alternative is I may not acknowledge the sincerity of the belief of people who follow other religions. I might feel that my sincere belief in my religion is proof that my religion is true. Other religions must therefore be false and being false religions they can generate the sincere belief that my religion generates in me. So people who profess to believe in other religions cannot actually have the sincere beliefs that I have. Their claims to have the same sincere beliefs I have are lies.
In either case, I will end up seeing the existence of other religions as an attack on my religion. And I will see the people holding other religious beliefs as people who are attacking me.
God said it. I believe it. That settles it. /s
Seen on actual bumper stickers (without the /s)
Another one I saw:
“I’m not religious. I just love the Lord!”
WTF? I never said anything about the late Mr. Angher. In fact, it didn’t enter my mind. It’s rude of you to suggest otherwise.
That’s why I wasn’t sure whether or not you meant him, so I said “if”.
Good.
No, not really.
Yes, it is. You accused me of speaking ill of the dead, which I would never do.
It’s not rude to point out that a remark that you made could plausibly be interpreted as insulting. It doesn’t automatically become rude just because the apparent target of the possibly-intended insult happens to be dead.
Your accusation that it could be “plausibly insulting” has no basis in fact. I just picked a bird. Would sparrow be insulting to anyone?
You picked a bird that was the well-known favorite and research specialty of someone who was known on these boards as a professional ornithologist, whose very username colibri means “hummingbird” in Spanish, who worked for taxpayer-funded research institutions. And you sneered that the subject of such research was undeserving of taxpayer funding.
Now, as is clear from my response, I certainly didn’t jump to any conclusion that you must have intended a disparaging insinuation towards Colibri in particular. Nor am I in any way refusing to believe you when you assert that that wasn’t what you meant. But yeah, at face value it was a plausible interpretation.
If you disagree, well, you have in your own hands the standard remedy for pursuing justice against acts of prohibited rudeness in non-Pit forums.
Never mind