switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... Last
[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 10:57:41 EDT from vince-q

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

2014-10-31 07:50 from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd

I just sent a flaming Tweet directly to the Pope. This may be a new


(He said something stupid and I felt obligated to call him on the
carpet for it.)

I'm curious - which Pope Frank-ism was it *this* time?
Oh, the man is almost assuredly well-meaning; which makes me wonder why he reminds me of Dan Quayle....

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 10:59:29 EDT from vince-q

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

This is stupid. Caring for the poor does *not* make you a communist.

Caring for the poor using money seized from other people against their

will *does* make you a communist.

"From each according to their means.
To each according to their needs."

Karl Marx, right?
Wrong. It is from the 4th century Rule for Monastic Orders (St. Benedict).

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 11:16:04 EDT from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

But God speaks through the pope so maybe God told him to say it.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 11:35:49 EDT from DemonStalker <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 31 2014 11:16am from zooer @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics & Propaganda>

But God speaks through the pope so maybe God told him to say it.

That only works if the Pope is speaking "ex-Cathedra."
That has only happened, if memory serves, twice since Papal "infallability" was proclaimed as a Doctrine at Vatican I.

And it actually may only have been once: the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary (often confused, even by some Catholics, with the "Virgin Birth of Christ").

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 14:24:42 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

That has only happened, if memory serves, twice since Papal
"infallability" was proclaimed as a Doctrine at Vatican I.

...and IGnored by us protestants and evangelicals :)

The point is, he made a deliberately disingenuous remark, one that is commonly made by people with socialist/Marxist tendencies. Altruism is compassionate; pretty much everyone except Ayn Rand agrees on that. What he did was to blur the line between giving your *own* money to the poor, and giving SOMEONE ELSE'S money to the poor.

When someone makes a comment like that in a public forum, they get called on it. I don't care what major religion he oversees.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 16:14:08 EDT from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Early Christianity, one might notice, is very communistic in nature.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 17:16:11 EDT from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Oct 31 2014 1:14pm from fleeb @uncnsrd (Uncensored) in Politics & Propaganda>

Early Christianity, one might notice, is very communistic in nature.

Monastic Christianity remains so to this day. And that includes women religious in convents.

[#] Fri Oct 31 2014 17:25:36 EDT from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

The problem with Communism is that those of us who lived through the era of the USSR equate, falsely, their governmental/social system with Communism. It was anything *but*. It was a totalitarian socialist nationalist regime that ruled from fear, and not the mutual regard for one's fellow man that a true communist society requires.

And therein lies the other problem.

Communism is great - on paper. But (and this is a *huge* 'but') it does not, in the parlance of the geeks, scale upward.

If the social unit gets much beyond 100 participants it starts to fail. And the larger the community the quicker the failure.

That's why monasteries succeed, convents succeed, but nation-states fail when attempting to implement a communist system.

Has nothing to do with anything but the simple fact that once a social group gets large enough, petty jealousies and competition start to pull the group apart until the group succumbs to the inevitability of re-introducing the Profit Motive. And given just a short bit more time, that once communist group will be capitalist. Capitalism, with all of its faults, scales upward without limit. And in the process *encourages* competition and debate which, in turn, demands a social structure wherein the members can participate toward their own future with equal voice.

Communism, on the other hand, when attempting to scale upward, requires force to keep the members "in line."

Bottom line? Capitalistic social growth engenders democracy; communism, as it grows, engenders dictatorship.

THAT is the problem with communism.

[#] Sat Nov 01 2014 00:19:43 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It can scale, but not as a system of government. Remember when Bill Gates said that open source was communist? His intention was a smear campaign, but he was unintentionally correct. Lots of people contributing, lots of people participating, lots of people enjoying the benefits. But that's because the cost of sharing software is zero. If I have a loaf of bread and you redistribute it to others, I can't feed my family. But if I have a piece of software and everyone gets a copy, I still have it and can still use 100% of it.

Over time, though, words end up having different meanings, particularly in politics where there is a whole lot of disingenuity involved. "Liberal" is supposed to invoke freedom, but in these modern times it invokes socialism, particularly in the US (which is why, having soiled that word, the socialists now call themselves "progressives"). The same is true for "communism." Even though they have the same root, "commune" "communion" "community" and "communism" all evoke completely different connotations.

Yes, the political stylings of despots like Nikita Khrushchev and Barack Obama would be more appropriately called "
socialist" or "Marxist" -- but the idea of true libertarians winning back the word "liberal" is about as likely as technology enthusiasts winning back "hacker."

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 06:57:18 EST from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

NY-Governor -- 14,016 of 14,998 precincts reporting (93%)
Andrew Cuomo [Dem] [I] 1,789,866 54% (X)
Rob Astorino [GOP] 1,341,633 40%
Howie Hawkins [Grn] 166,479 5%
Steven Cohn [Oth] 4,312 0%
Michael McDermott [Lib] 14,232 0%

I can't believe the green party did so well. I watched a little of the debate. The green party is hard/far
left. "Government is the problem, the only solution is more government."

I figure why the green party did so well is that the democrat was guaranteed a win and the dissatisfied
democrats felt safe in voting green.

The libertarian didn't do well at the debate.

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 08:49:22 EST from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

We got rid of our democrat and replaced him with a republican. Let's see if anything actually changes.

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 09:04:17 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I gave up on the LP in 2010 when the Tea Party movement gave true libertarians a voice in mainstream politics.

Here in the People's Republic of New York it was pretty obvious that Comrade Cuomo was going to bring in an easy win. That's why Astorino ran in the first place: he's still got two years left in his term as Westchester county executive so it didn't have to be a risky move.

B. Hitler Obama has already announced that he will simply ignore Congress and implement his agenda by executive order [].
I think he should run for a third term.

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 11:24:17 EST from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

B. Hitler Obama has already announced that he will simply ignore
Congress and implement his agenda by executive order
I think he should run for a third term.

In Jan 2017, the new Republican president can un-do every single executive order with one of his own. That is simultaneously the good, *and* precarious, nature of executive orders as opposed to legislation.

And along the way - who knows? Hitler Hussein may actually write one that is illegal. I view this as extremely likely. And that, coupled with the felonious acts he's already managed to commit, will leave him square in the sights of the new Republican attorney general in 2017 for prosecution. That of course will not really happen. "We don't prosecute former presidents." And that might actually be a good thing since if we got into the practice of doing that it would really discourage good people from seeking the office.

Besides, prison terms end. A terrible legacy is eternal.

Bill Clinton: Fornicator-in-Chief
Barack Obama: Asshole-in-Chief; Traitor Emeritus

And just what if, after he's gone, the proof actually emerges that he is not a "native born citizen" but naturalized, and hence served illegally as POTUS.

In that eventuality a very good case could be made that every presidential document carrying his signature is null and void on its face since he did not legally have the authority so to act.

Fascinating... Just think of the horrid things *that* would un-do!!

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 14:15:08 EST from IGnatius T Foobar

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Well, that's why he should run for a third term:

1. He won't win because he's so unpopular now
2. So what if he's not eligible for a third term? As a Kenyan native he wasn't eligible for the first two.

And let's not assume that the 2016 election is "in the bag" for the GOP.
The establishment RINOs are going to work as hard as they can to find a candidate who will lose to Hitlery Cunton. Jeb Bush comes to mind. Or maybe another Mormon so they can ensure that most of the evangelical/protestant/catholic set stays home instead of voting (that's what scuttled 2012, dontcha know).

What would absolutely guarantee a 2016 victory? It's easy. All they have to do is run a true conservative. The establishment RINO types keep getting in the way, and we need to put a stop to it. The choices are Tea Party and Socialism. Anything in between swings to Socialism by default.

[#] Wed Nov 05 2014 21:58:37 EST from fleeb

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I blame Reagan for teaching republicans to spend money like democrats.

I blame Bush (Shrub) for teaching democrats that they can use executive orders to circumvent Congress.

And I blame all of them for caring less about our country and more about themselves.

[#] Thu Nov 06 2014 09:28:34 EST from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

A pox on them all.

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 11:03:33 EST from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

In two days, on Sunday November 9, we here at Cascade Lodge will be exceptionally happy to be joining with our friends online in Deutschland to commemorate and celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the opening of the Berlin Wall and the beginning of the long post-war German Dream of Viedervereinigung!!

Viel Glueck fuer die kommenden Jahre!!

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 11:05:21 EST from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Spelling Error! Please excuse the "V".
Obviously that should be "Wiedervereinigung"... <red-faced - obviously>

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 11:07:37 EST from vince-q <>

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Question for you Germans out there....

"Ich bin ein Berliner" (JFK, 1963)
In my high school German class back in '63 my instructor made a huge deal out of "Kennedy didn't even know he was claiming to be a jelly pastry."

Is that true? Is "ein Berliner" a pastry in Germany? Or is that just a huge myth?

[#] Fri Nov 07 2014 11:42:39 EST from zooer

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Google translate says it is "I am a Berliner". Berliner or Berliner Pfannkuchen is a doughnut.

Source: Google/wikipedia

Go to page: First ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... Last