"If you don't open your mouth, Cardinal Daniels can't bless you with his holy, sticky liquid."

Cardinal Glick: Get them while they're young! That's our motto!
Rufus: Sort of like the tobacco industry...
Cardinal Glick: Christ. If only we had their numbers...

>> ^chilaxe:
Social movements gain share in the marketplace of ideas by offering more intelligent solutions than those advanced by other social movements. Supernaturalists lost credibility when one of them assassinated Dr. Tiller. Rationalists lose credibility in the marketplace of ideas when one of them calls for assassination or genocide.


Actually, he never said anything about killing them. Just that he wants them gone from his life and world. And so do I.

>> ^gorillaman:
That's fine, I feel the same way about him. I wish you pussies would stop crying about tolerance and realise we don't want to be tolerated by these niggers; we want them gone from our lives and our world.


Social movements gain share in the marketplace of ideas by offering more intelligent solutions than those advanced by other social movements. Supernaturalists lost credibility when one of them assassinated Dr. Tiller. Rationalists lose credibility in the marketplace of ideas when one of them calls for assassination or genocide.

The quote of the moment: http://www.videosift.com/video/Cardinal-Cormac-Murphy-O-Connor-Atheists-not-fully-human

In my opinion, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor is not fully a superstitious , increasingly irrelevant 77 year old male virgin and a shitfaced cunt, but.. oh wait, yes he is.

I just had to register a new account to reply to this.

1. You're basing "design" on how we, as humans, consider it. So, as a designer myself, I know that when you design something, it is not streamlined. It won't perform the best way. It's a concept! You iterate, change things, modify how stuff works.. So therefore design *evolves*. An evolution of design throws a kink into the idea of a God getting it right the first time and gives more credence to Darwin's theory.
2. Bad example using the hotel. You're not proving your point, nor discrediting his.
3. You're completely avoiding the answer objectively. You're saying that there must be a God to give moral authority if there is none to begin with. That's very very presumptuous. Humans create moral authority based on majority opinion. They're called "laws" and they existed for a long, long time even before civilized society.
4. I would echo what Shuac had to say. On top of that, if people of the world are to obey the first commandment, God would have people's undivided attention if he just appeared one day to the world saying, "Hey guys I'm here," performed a miracle or two, and left. Whamo, you have one world under one religion instantly.
5. Proof of God interests me. It would change me. But right now, there will be a day where Science will indeed disprove many more religious beliefs. Science will evolve. How will the church respond? Will they edit the bible? What human has that authority? Won't that cast doubt on the credibility of religion?

I have questions too:

1. Why does God want us to worship him?
2. Why do we need the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, and Clergymen, and why should they dress up the way they do? Why should they have any authority over anyone?

And finally:

3. Generally, are people smarter and/or more intelligent than people 2000 years ago? Reason I ask is that I look through history and I see plain ignorance guiding lives. A century ago, people were fascinated by magicians. Some probably thought they had supernatural ability. During the Salem Witch Trials, people were burnt at the stake for doing things that were misunderstood or suspicious. Earlier than that, some cultures murdered babies for being deformed. Cultures sacrificed virgins to volcanoes to appease their gods. Crazy huh?

Isn't it then a matter of fact that people, generally, were more stupid and gullible 2000 years ago than they were today? If you did a magic card trick to the Apostles, they would think you had special powers too..

Take back astronomy? Oh, does he mean the same bullshit four hundred years later?

Quoth the Wikipedia:

On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI) cited some current views on the Galileo affair as forming what he called "a symptomatic case that permits us to see how deep the self-doubt of the modern age, of science and technology goes today."

"During a Papal audience, a business man approached the Pope and made this offer: Change the last line of the Lord’s prayer from “give us this day our daily bread” to “give us this day our daily chicken.” and KFC will donate 10 million dollars to Catholic charities.

The Pope declined. 2 weeks later the man approached the Pope again. This time with a 50 million dollar offer. Again the Pope declined. A month later the man offers 100 million, this time the Pope accepts.

At a meeting of the Cardinals, The Pope announces his decision in the good news/bad news format. The good news is… that we have 100 million dollars for charities. The bad news is that we lost the Wonder Bread account!"

>> ^volumptuous:
A hummingbird flew into my house two weeks ago and couldn't find his way back out.
I cornered him in a windowsill and he landed and stopped trying to fly. He was completely still and let me pick him up in my hands. I brought him outside, set him on the ground, and he flew away.
The whole time I was thinking to myself: " HOLYSHIT IM HOLDING A HUMMINGBIRD!!"

(and yes, in my world all hummingbirds are male for some unknown reason)



I had the same experience with a Cardinal. The little guy (I know it was male in this case) woke me up from a nap flapping against my window. He looked so terrified as I was carrying him through the apartment, but flew off just fine.

What is 'political religion'? posted by lenin

Michael Löwy has a lovely article on Walter Benjamin and capitalism-as-religion in the latest issue of Historical Materialism. I strongly recommend you get yourself a copy. But what Löwy doesn't say is that the final stage of capitalist religion, according to Benjamin, is Satanism. This is from The Arcades Project, composed between 1927 and 1940:

On Satanism: "When the puritans at the Council of Constance complained of the dissolate lives of the popes ..., Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly thundered at them: 'Only the devil in person can still save the Catholic church, and you ask for angels.' In like manner, after the coup d'etat, the French bourgeoisie cried: Only the chief of the Society of December 10 can still save bourgeois society! Only theft can still save property! Only perjury can save religion! Only bastardy can save the family! Only disorder can save order!" Marx, Der achtzehnte Brumaire, ed. Rjazanov, p. 124.

>> ^youdiejoe:
>> ^gnargnar:
2 things:
1. how do they cover up the uh... front bits...?
2. do you think having a body like that makes you skeezy or does being skeezy make you have a body like that?

1. With the help of a razor and some shaving lotion.
2. what does skeezy have to do with it?
The cardinal fan seems to have a rather perky jersey... ::cough::boobjob:::COUGH while the Steeler fan is a natural


I seriously hope you and I are thinking about different things, because I seriously think he was talking about nipples.

And if so, the Cardinals fan is hiding it decently, but the steelers fan didn't do such a good job.

They have black marks running down her "Jersey" but it really doesn't help out much from the side.

>> ^gnargnar:
2 things:
1. how do they cover up the uh... front bits...?
2. do you think having a body like that makes you skeezy or does being skeezy make you have a body like that?


1. With the help of a razor and some shaving lotion.
2. what does skeezy have to do with it?

The cardinal fan seems to have a rather perky jersey... ::cough::boobjob:::COUGH while the Steeler fan is a natural

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]

Tags for this video have been changed from 'barack, obama, wall street, bonus, shameful, responsibility, economy' to 'obama, wall street, bonus, shameful, responsibility, economy, steelers, cardinals' - edited by doogle