It's not my task to convince you that God does or does not exist.

There are likely millions of people on this planet that would deny the existence of God even if God appeared before them.

But the militant atheist, who denies that ANY good has come from religion is, IMO, intellectually dishonest, ignorant of history, or both.

In this age, subversives have made it fashionable to bash the world's one billion Catholics while giving the world's 1.5 billion muslims a free pass.


>> ^honkeytonk73:

What has God done to eradicate homelessness, disease, suffering, starvation? He could snap his magical fingers and poof it is gone! But.. the more logical answer is.. he has done nothing because he doesn't exist. Or one could say. "He created homelessness, disease, suffering, and starvation." Probably to make some sort of illogical point that we can't quite articulate, because of his "Mysterious ways" or some such bunk. The "mysterious ways" argument essentially translates into "I don't know, nor do I care to find out why because I lack any capacity to reason. Any instinct to question as a result been subdued out of a fear of ending up in some sort of subterranean firey underworld for an eternity... hosted by rather unfriendly horned red-skinned demons that bugger the local denizens. Very much like Catholic priests in a dark sauna with choir boys.

Those are important questions, but the one billion dollar question is can he throw a cigarette into his mouth while looking really cool? No point having upper body strength if you can't look dapper with a cigarette.

i just downvoted my first qm comment.
(i think, i maybe proven wrong, but i dont REMEMBER voting another one down)

No, there have to be others. I'm pretty sure you hated me when you first started commenting.

taking care of eachother as a national ideal is not the same thing as "celebrating" being downtrodden. i suppose you celebrate the kind of greed which creates this human refuse. with compassion, we all grow stronger.

im confused as to your idea of morality.

Since you have firsthand experience in these matters, I have to wonder why you think "greed" is the cause of homelessness. What about mental illness, drug addiction, abusive homes, etc?

Treating homelessness is a logistical nightmare. Half of the money set aside for food stamps goes UNspent, and even if you could round up the homeless to feed them, the ACLU would sue any organization that "violated the rights" of the homeless by putting the mentally ill in an institution.

As in all things, there are no solutions, only trade-offs.



I was orig. addressing the other side of enoch's quote:

"A measure of a society can be made on how it treats its elderly, children and weakest members"

Years ago I read a similar sentiment painted on a wall in Berkeley, CA...

The area of Berkeley I visited had a university campus, with tuition costs of 50K per annum, surrounded by blocks of expensive businesses whose walkways were crowded with young, healthy, able-bodied bums; what they lacked in money they made up for in self-righteousness.

They demanded money because, hey, you were working weren't you? You could afford it!

When hobos were roaming the country in the 1930s, they always offered to work for food or other items. Now there's an entitlement mentality, part of which includes blaming society for self-inflicted wounds.

What about the government/society that celebrates victimhood, creates dependency and makes people weaker?

To answer my own question, last year Florida taxpayers spent 100 million in "free" medical care for illegal aliens, Texas taxpayers spent 250 million, and California? One Billion dollars.

Do you think that one billion spent on illegal invaders might have helped these homeless people instead?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

It is highly improbable that this imperialist war of 1914–16 will be transformed into a national war, because the class that represents progress is the proletariat, which, objectively, is striving to transform this war into civil war against the bourgeoisie; and also because the strength of both coalitions is almost equally balanced, while international finance capital has everywhere created a reactionary bourgeoisie. Nevertheless, it cannot be said that such a transformation is impossible: if the European proletariat were to remain impotent for another twenty years; if the present war were to end in victories similar to those achieved by Napoleon, in the subjugation of a number of virile national states; if imperialism outside of Europe (primarily American and Japanese) were to remain in power for another twenty years without a transition to socialism, say, as a result of a Japanese-American war, then a great national war in Europe would be possible. This means that Europe would be thrown back for several decades. This is improbable. But it is not impossible, for to picture world history as advancing smoothly and steadily without sometimes taking gigantic strides backward is undialectical, unscientific and theoretically wrong.

Further, national wars waged by colonial, and semi-colonial countries are not only possible but inevitable in the epoch of imperialism. The colonies and semi-colonies (China, Turkey, Persia) have a population of nearly one billion, i.e., more than half the population of the earth. In these countries the movements for national liberation are either very strong already or are growing and maturing. Every war is a continuation of politics by other means. The national liberation politics of the colonies will inevitably be continued by national wars of the colonies against imperialism. Such wars may lead to an imperialist war between the present “Great” imperialist Powers or they may not; that depends on many circumstances.

For example: England and France were engaged in a seven years war for colonies, i.e., they waged an imperialist war (which is as possible on the basis of slavery, or of primitive capitalism, as on the basis of highly developed modern capitalism). France was defeated and lost part of her colonies. Several years later the North American States started a war for national liberation against England alone. Out of enmity towards England, i.e., in conformity with their own imperialist interests, France and Spain, which still held parts of what are now the United States, concluded friendly treaties with the states that had risen against England. The French forces together with the American defeated the English. Here we have a war for national liberation in which imperialist rivalry is a contributory element of no great importance, which is the opposite of what we have in the war of 1914–16 (in which the national element in the Austro-Serbian war is of no great importance compared with the all determining imperialist rivalry). This shows how absurd it would be to employ the term imperialism in a stereotyped fashion by deducing from it that national wars are “impossible.” A war for national liberation waged, for example, by an alliance of Persia, India and China against certain imperialist Powers is quite possible and probable, for it follows logically from the national liberation movements now going on in those countries. Whether such a war will be transformed into an imperialist war among the present imperialist Powers will depend on a great many concrete circumstances, and it would be ridiculous to guarantee that these circumstances will arise.

Thirdly, national wars must not be regarded as impossible in the epoch of imperialism even in Europe. The “epoch of imperialism” made the present war an imperialist war; it inevitably engenders (until the advent of socialism) new imperialist war; it transformed the policies of the present Great Powers into thoroughly imperialist policies. But this “epoch” by no means precludes the possibility of national wars, waged, for example, by small (let us assume, annexed or nationally oppressed) states against the imperialist Powers, any more than it precludes the possibility of big national movements in Eastern Europe. With regard to Austria, for example, Junius shows sound judgment in taking into account not only the “economic,” but also the peculiar political situation, in noting Austria’s “inherent lack of vitality” and admitting that “the Hapsburg monarchy is not a political organisation of a bourgeois state, but only a loosely knit syndicate of several cliques of social parasites,” that “historically, the liquidation of Austria-Hungary is merely the continuation of the disintegration of Turkey and at the same time a demand of the historical process of development.” The situation is no better in certain Balkan states and in Russia. And in the event of the “Great Powers” becoming extremely exhausted in the present war, or in the event of a victorious revolution in Russia, national wars, even victorious ones, are quite possible. On the one hand, intervention by the imperialist powers is not possible under all circumstances. On the other hand, when people argue haphazardly that a war waged by a small state against a giant state is hopeless, we must say that a hopeless war is war nevertheless, and, moreover, certain events within the “giant” states—for example, the beginning of a revolution—may transform a “hopeless” war into a very “hopeful” one.

The fact that the postulate that “there can be no more national wars” is obviously fallacious in theory is not the only reason why we have dealt with this fallacy at length. It would be a very deplorable thing, of course, if the “Lefts” began to be careless in their treatment of Marxian theory, considering that the Third International can be established only on the basis of Marxism, unvulgarised Marxism. But this fallacy is also very harmful in a practical political sense; it gives rise to the stupid propaganda for “disarmament,” as if no other war but reactionary wars are possible; it is the cause of the still more stupid and downright reactionary indifference towards national movements. Such indifference becomes chauvinism when members of “Great” European nations, i.e., nations which oppress a mass of small and colonial peoples, declare with a learned air that “there can be no more national wars!” National wars against the imperialist Powers are not only possible and probable, they are inevitable, they are progressive and revolutionary, although, of course, what is needed for their success is either the combined efforts of an enormous number of the inhabitants of the oppressed countries (hundreds of millions in the example we have taken of India and China), or a particularly favourable combination of circumstances in the international situation (for example, when the intervention of the imperialist Powers is paralysed by exhaustion, by war, by their mutual antagonisms, etc.), or a simultaneous uprising of the proletariat of one of the Great Powers against the bourgeoisie (this latter case stands first in order from the standpoint of what is desirable and advantageous for the victory of the proletariat).

We must state, however, that it would be unfair to accuse Junius of being indifferent to national movements. When enumerating the sins of the Social-Democratic Parliamentary group, he does at least mention their silence in the matter of the execution of a native leader in the Cameroons for “treason” (evidently for an attempt at insurrection in connection with the war); and in another place he emphasises (for the special benefit of Messrs. Legien, Lensch and similar scoundrels who call themselves “Social-Democrats”) that colonial nations are also nations. He declares very definitely: “Socialism recognises for every people the right to independence and freedom, the right to be masters of their own destiny.... International socialism recognises the right of free, independent, equal nations, but only socialism can create such nations, only socialism can establish the right of nations to self-determination. This slogan of socialism,” justly observes the author, “like all its other slogans, serves, not to justify the existing order of things, but as a guide post, as a stimulus to the revolutionary, reconstructive, active policy of the proletariat.” (p. 77-78) Consequently, it would be a profound mistake to suppose that all the Left German Social-Democrats have stooped to the narrow-mindedness and distortion of Marxism advocated by certain Dutch and Polish Social-Democrats, who repudiate self-determination of nations even under socialism. However, we shall deal with the special Dutch and Polish sources of this mistake elsewhere.

Another fallacious argument advanced by Junius is in connection with the question of defence of the fatherland. This is a cardinal political question during an imperialist war. Junius has strengthened us in our conviction that our Party has indicated the only correct approach to this question: the proletariat is opposed to defence of the fatherland in this imperialist war because of its predatory, slave-owning, reactionary character, because it is possible and necessary to oppose to it (and to strive to convert it into) civil war for socialism. Junius, however, while brilliantly exposing the imperialist character of the present war as distinct from a national war, falls into the very strange error of trying to drag a national programme into the present non-national war. It sounds almost incredible, but it is true.

The official Social-Democrats, both of the Legien and of the Kautsky shade, in their servility to the bourgeoisie, who have been making the most noise about foreign “invasion” in order to deceive the masses of the people as to the imperialist character of the war, have been particularly assiduous in repeating this “invasion” argument. Kautsky, who now assures naive and credulous people (incidentally, through the mouth of “Spectator,” a member of the Russian Organization Committee) that he joined the opposition at the end of 1914, continues to use this “argument”! To refute it, Junius quotes extremely instructive examples from history, which prove that “invasion and class struggle are not contradictory in bourgeois history, as the official legend has it, but that one is the means and the expression of the other.” For example, the Bourbons in France invoked foreign invaders against the Jacobins; the bourgeoisie in 1871 invoked foreign invaders against the Commune. In his Civil War in France, Marx wrote:

“The highest heroic effort of which old society is still capable is national war; and this is now proved to be a mere governmental humbug, intended to defer the struggle of the classes, and to be thrown aside as soon as that class struggle bursts out in civil war.”[7]

giga means one billion.

ONE BILLION WATTS!!!

muahahaha....MUAaahahaha....MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!

"That dot in the center of the image is the Earth. It’s us. Cassini was nearly one billion miles from us when it took this image, orbiting a giant ball of gas as exotic and alien as any place we can imagine."
--from: bad astronomy.

>> ^quantumushroom:
A hopeful argument, but if a few dozen terrorists killed thousands in the name of Christ, the worldwide condemnation from Christian majorities would be swift and loud. There is no equivalent singular voice from the world's one billion + Muslims.


Erm, last time i checked, so-called "christians" voted a few dozen terrorists into the whitehouse and millions died.

I have had this discussion with my friends on many occasions, and my answer is simple: I don't fight back.

It may seem counter-intuitive, but I think it makes perfect sense. The zombies are going to get you eventually, because you cannot possibly hide from them forever. If there is a 5:1 ratio of zombie to human, you're looking at one billion survivors. That may seem like a lot, but remember that you have 5 zombies for every survivor. If you can survive for the rest of your life while being hunted by at least 5 zombies, you are not human. Or you don't have a brain. And that opens up a new post about the kind of person that could survive by not being desirable food for zombies.

So I say, let the zombies get you, but don't let them eat your brain. Just stick your hand out of the crack in your front door that was caused by your axe (you had to get in somehow, right?) and let the zombies take a bite out of you. Wait a few minutes or hours before turning (depending on which movie plot you go by), then when you're a zombie, go outside and start hunting!

I live in the Islamic state of Kuwait, the second largest religious denomination here is Christians. In fact in most countries in the Middle East it is always the second largest religious block.

Some things good, others not as good:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Kuwait

Muslims have no problem with Jews, they have a problem with Zionists, which is a totally different thing and relates to the continuous oppression of Palestinian people. There are many Jews who live in peace in that most feared state of Iran, something that dispels the common held misconception that Iran wants to 'wipe' Israel away. The differences are political not religious.

It would take a whole book to discuss either side of this argument; for this particular sift, the focus was on Muslims in the United States. Even from the above wiki link I see that once again, there is more religious freedom and tolerance in the US than elsewhere.

Islamic ways are not backward and are totally compatible with Democracy, which thrives in Kuwait, Turkey, Indonesia and other nations (I exclude most Middle East nations since they are monarchies, like that closest ally to the US called Saudi Arabia from where most of 9/11 hijackers hail).

To clarify: living as Muslim is possible most anywhere, but Sharia law as interpreted appears incompatible with Western republics.

The reasoning that Muslims are burning up Europe is a fallacious lie, that problem has to do with how Europeans are dealing with immigrants rather then a specific religious block...

In the age of Poisonous Correctness, it's very difficult for power-seekers to villify any group except the largest or most successful. The evidence leans more to the argument of Muslim non-assmilation than resistance on the part of the majority, who have the option of curtailing immigration.

To terrorists the Islamic religion is but a political tool of mobilization, whose teachings they mangle into their own belief of killing westerners, its a desecration for nowhere in the Koran is it allowed to kill civilians, commit terrorist acts or wage a guerrilla war. The highest ruling in the Koran is to seek peace over confrontation and war.

A hopeful argument, but if a few dozen terrorists killed thousands in the name of Christ, the worldwide condemnation from Christian majorities would be swift and loud. There is no equivalent singular voice from the world's one billion + Muslims.

totally awesome, how come there's one billion clips of the simpsons but only this one clip of this guy on here? i cannot fucking understand it.

Government is a necessary evil, not a panacea. If you think the same bureaucrats who can't/won't control the border, can't deliver the mail and run Amtrak at an annual loss of one billion dollars should be given control over your health care decisions, you get what you deserve.

it would be one billion times funnier if it was two irish guys.

"One billion of the touchiest people on earth.." hilarious

whatever materazzi did, zidane´s behaviour was extremly unprofessional. it doesn´t matter what materazzi said, because knocking one down just for what he said is wrong, especially if you´re the idol of thousands (millions?) of kids and while you´re watched by more than one BILLION people worldwide...

and yes, the shootout sucked. france dominated the game, they were by far the better team. just my two cents