The Funny Side of Religion

jobee

Its that man again.

http://www.blip.tv/file/3928433

vibe666

darjeeling

Ah, bless her, she just keeps giving. Here's today's delight from self-declared non-witch and Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat Christine O'Donnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?

Chris Coons (Dem):
Government shall make no establishment of religion

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
That's in the first amendment?

[edit: highlights at 2:48, 7:05]
.

Des Carter

Des Carter

eoin5

darjeeling wrote: »

Ah, bless her, she just keeps giving. Here's today's delight from self-declared non-witch and Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat Christine O'Donnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?

Chris Coons (Dem):
Government shall make no establishment of religion

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
That's in the first amendment?

[edit: highlights at 2:48, 7:05]
.

reminds me of this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4nHimDidbU

Turtwig

darjeeling wrote: »

Ah, bless her, she just keeps giving. Here's today's delight from self-declared non-witch and Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat Christine O'Donnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?

Chris Coons (Dem):
Government shall make no establishment of religion

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
That's in the first amendment?

[edit: highlights at 2:48, 7:05]
.

The sad thing about that video is how many American's will cop just how stupid she was there? I mean, you can bet your arse fox news will spin it so that this debate appeared more balanced lol.

The Mad Hatter

vibe666

did we have this one yet?

sensibleken

I thing we did know most of these

http://www.cracked.com/article_18757_5-things-you-wont-believe-arent-in-bible.html

bleg

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Tarot cards would probably be more useful in financial planning than the crowd we have in charge here to be fair.

Galvasean

darjeeling wrote: »

Ah, bless her, she just keeps giving. Here's today's delight from self-declared non-witch and Republican candidate for the Delaware Senate seat Christine O'Donnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miwSljJAzqg

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the first amendment?

Chris Coons (Dem):
Government shall make no establishment of religion

Christine O'Donnell (Rep / Tea party):
That's in the first amendment?

[edit: highlights at 2:48, 7:05]
.

How the heck can someone running for the senate not know about the first amendment!?!?!?

liamw

Galvasean wrote: »

How the heck can someone running for the senate not know about the first amendment!?!?!?

What worries me more is how she got to that position at all...

strobe

liamw wrote: »

What worries me more is how she got to that position at all...

How? Democracy.

It's based on who is the most popular at a particular infinitesimal point in time, not who is best for the job. Ideally the two should coincide, the person best suited for the job should be the most popular. But that has never ever been how it works in practice.

sponsoredwalk

strobe wrote: »

How? Democracy.

It's based on who is the most popular at a particular infinitesimal point in time, not who is best for the job. Ideally the two should coincide, the person best suited for the job should be the most popular. But that has never ever been how it works in practice.

Andrew Heywood - Politics wrote:

Aristotle held that governments could be categorized on the basis of two
questions: 'who rules?', and 'who benefits from rule?'. Government,
he believed, could be placed in the hands of a single individual, a small
group, or the many. In each case, however, government could be
conducted either in the selfish interests of the rulers or for the benefit
of the entire community. He thus identified the six forms of government
shown in Figure 2.1. Aristotle's purpose was to evaluate forms of
government on normative grounds in the hope of identifying the 'ideal'
constitution. In his view, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy were all
debased or perverted forms of rule in which a single person, a
small group and the masses, respectively, governed in their own interests
and therefore at the expense of others. In contrast, monarchy, aristocracy
and polity were to be preferred, because in these forms of government the
individual, small group and the masses, respectively, governed in the
interests of all. Aristotle declared tyranny to be the worst of all possible
constitutions, as it reduced citizens to the status of slaves.
Monarchy and aristocracy were, on the other hand, impractical, because
they were based on a God-like willingness to place the good of the
community before the rulers' own interests. Polity (rule by the many in
the interests of all) was accepted as the most practicable of constitutions.
Nevertheless, in a tradition that endured through to the twentieth century,
Aristotle criticized popular rule on the grounds that the masses
would resent the wealth of the few, and too easily fall under the
sway of a demagogue. He therefore advocated a 'mixed' constitution
that combined elements of both democracy and aristocracy, and left the
government in the hands of the 'middle classes', those who were neither
rich nor poor.

Was Aristotle right? Even a little?

sensibleken

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Was Aristotle right? Even a little?

Aristotle was wrong about absolutely everything ever. the number of senses and elements spring to mind. It was basically, Aristotle says something and it becomes law for 1000 years despite nobody examining it to see if its true while pytagoras weeps in the corner for humanity. Greek democracy is incomparrible to modern democracy. Plato also opposed it but for less selfish reasons than his student

Besides he's one to talk about self interest. He is one of the wealthy few he's talking about so he would deprive people of a say for his own sake. He said that only the wealthy should be intitled to have a say because they were the only ones with enough spare time to think. this is why slavery is neccesary for good politics, frees up time and expense for more rich people thinking.

He also argued that the best age for a man to marry was in his 40s and the best time for a woman was 18. He said this when he was in his 40s and wanted to marry an 18 year old funnily enough.

sponsoredwalk

sensibleken wrote: »

Aristotle was wrong about absolutely everything ever. the number of senses and elements spring to mind. It was basically, Aristotle says something and it becomes law for 1000 years despite nobody examining it to see if its true while pytagoras weeps in the corner for humanity. Greek democracy is incomparrible to modern democracy. Plato also opposed it but for less selfish reasons than his student

Besides he's one to talk about self interest. He is one of the wealthy few he's talking about so he would deprive people of a say for his own sake. He said that only the wealthy should be intitled to have a say because they were the only ones with enough spare time to think. this is why slavery is neccesary for good politics, frees up time and expense for more rich people thinking.

He also argued that the best age for a man to marry was in his 40s and the best time for a woman was 18. He said this when he was in his 40s and wanted to marry an 18 year old funnily enough.

Yes I know all that, so "In his view, tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
were all debased or perverted forms of rule in which a single person,
asmall group and the masses, respectively, governed in their own
interests and therefore at the expense of others. ... Aristotle
criticized popular rule on the grounds that the masses
would resent the wealth of the few, and too easily fall under
the sway of a demagogue." is wrong then?
I believe he was 37 when he made that proclamation btw

It's not aristotle's fault his thoughts became doctrine, as many issues
as I have with Aristotle and will argue it's not anachronistic to criticise him
I don't think the above quote in which he spoke of democracy as being
susceptible to the sway of a demagogue is incorrect.
Think Obama...yes we can!

You might appreciate Michael Parenti's speeches on ancient Greece &
Rome online, there are plenty of mp3 lectures on it.

ColmDawson

While strolling through the library in UCD, I happened upon a book entitled "The Church Now" by Cumming/Burns. I tittered, I admit.

I found a better one though:

sensibleken

ColmDawson wrote: »

While strolling through the library in UCD, I happened upon a book entitled "The Church Now" by Cumming/Burns. I tittered, I admit.

I found a better one though:

AHAHAHAHA!!!:D

robindch

Makes a few good points, while being a trifle NSFW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo

Mark Hamill

Ickle Magoo

GLaDOS

Galvasean

Galvasean

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Top right: Ben Affleck married Cheryl Cole?

Delirium

Saw this site earlier ChristWire.org

Seems lots of people couldn't figure out if it was a parody or serious:D

Creators of the site explain the idea of the site

liamw

strobe wrote: »

How? Democracy.

It's based on who is the most popular at a particular infinitesimal point in time, not who is best for the job. Ideally the two should coincide, the person best suited for the job should be the most popular. But that has never ever been how it works in practice.

Oh I know how technically, that was my point; lots of people supporting and voting for someone like that is worrying. :pac:

/derail

Goduznt Xzst

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Was Aristotle right? Even a little?

ish... he was from a different era. As a commentary on his time his writings are pretty interesting though.

Democracy is a balancing act between full on Oligarchy or alternatively Ochlocracy (It would have to be pretty bad for it to tend greatly towards Tyranny in our current era tbh)

Democracy works however because people are stupid, sentimental and narrow minded morons, so a system needs to be in place where by any fuck ups that this generation chooses to make law, can get easily torn up by the next generation if they even have a shred of sense.

robindch

From the good folks at EnglishRussia:



"Welcome to Russia, Herr Ratzinger"

Ickle Magoo

"Yo! Homies - you be seein' ma glock if I hear you diss ma orthadox..."