Pope Francis

Matt Welch: 'The Pope is wrong for the poor, and the Pope is wrong for the rich'

|

Today I appeared on Fox Business Network's After the Bell program, along with Cato President John Allison and caffeinated markets dude Scott Martin, to talk about, among other things, Pope Francis's ideas about capitalism and the environment:

Yeah, bad hair day, I GET IT.

For a more intelligent version of my remarks, I recommend Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey's "Pope Francis Really Hates Modern Technology and Economic Progress."

NEXT: National Constitution Center podcast on this week's Supreme Court decisions - and the upcoming raisin takings case

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Bad hair day? You should consider a big white beanie like the old socialist.

  2. Dear Commie Pope – fuck off.

    I would rather be rich and warm than poor and cold.

  3. This Grand Popening will not go as well as he might have imagined.

  4. All my conservative catholic friends are starting to drop the pretense of “translation errors” and “it’s not ex cathedra.” The excuses have worn thin enough that they don’t believe their own rationalizations. They’re stuck with a shitty Pope, and they can’t do anything about it.

    1. They didn’t see it coming when a guy tight with the Peronists won the big hat?

  5. Matt your hair looks fabulous.

    1. Yes. I think he meant RAD HAIR DAY.

  6. But H&R official mascot Elizabeth Stoker Breunig says he’s sooooooooooooooooooooo dreamy.

    “Laudato is, at last, much more about ecology than it is about the environment specifically. Its moral vision unifies seemingly disparate realms of life with its ecological frame, which obliterates the possibility of splitting its moral observations into the relevant and irrelevant. There are segments that will earn Francis the kind of bitter censure he has earned throughout his papacy, such as a blunt reaffirmation that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property.” But it will be difficult for anyone hoping to dispute the Pope’s account of property to simultaneously endorse his view of, say, fetal life. “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings,” Francis wonders, “however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?””

    Oh my God, fuck you Commie Pope, you’re the worst.

    1. We need somebody to declare him an Anti-Pope. We haven’t had a good schism in a few centuries.

      1. Send in….THE BISHOP.

      2. There are actually quite a few challengers to Pope Francis’s claim to the Papacy, like Pope Michael, Pope Pius XIII, Pope Krav, and Pope Alexander IX.

  7. I can’t be the only one that doesn’t give any shit about this, right?

    1. I wouldn’t give any shit about it except it gets rubbed in my face by ignorant atheists. I’m not even Catholic, but they use it as fodder.

      1. THIS. I’m an agnostic. Fuck the Pope and duck the religion of climate change catastrophe.

          1. I approve of this message.

    2. Considering how versed you are in history, you should care about every single ecclesiastical proclamation. Someday you can tell your grandchildren that you were there when the Pope declared for Karl Marx.

      1. My grandchildren will be too busy hiding behind the rusted-out skeleton of an MRAP, hoping that the roving cannibal rape gangs that will rule the barren wasteland formerly known as America won’t see them to be interested in any stories of the “Before Time”.

        1. Keep reaching for that rainbow ; )

        2. That’s why it pays to swear fealty to the Bloodlord Warty now.

        3. I see you have the same vision of future America as I do. How many times did you watch Road Warrior on HBO?

        4. So the libertarian dream will come true?

    3. Heroic Mulatto|6.18.15 @ 10:55PM|#
      “I can’t be the only one that doesn’t give any shit about this, right?”

      I’d like to give it the attention is deserves, but the guy’s got X division of *voters*, so like Sharpton, he is an imbecile, but ya gotta keep an eye on him.

  8. You know, putting a lot of faith into the words of some old geezer in a funny hat that thinks he’s Gods main dude is pretty bat shit crazy.

  9. Census Bureau considers dropping ‘race’ from survey

    Instead, the forms will ask: “Which categories describe person 1?” Respondents will then be able to choose from the usual list of racial and ethnic categories.

    *** facepalm ***

    1. HUMAN

      1. Sorry, we’re gonna need some sub categories for that, for personal protection matters. If everyone weren’t divided and quarreling among themselves, they might just focus their attention and wrath on us. We can’t have that.

        /your dear leaders

      2. +1 Cosmic Sea

      3. BEAN

    2. If race is now what people identify as rather than what they are, can we add a write-in category for people who identify as elves or vampires or angels or otherkin or whatever?

      I’m asking for a friend.

      1. I’ve decided that I want to be a bear. A big fuzzy mama bear, named Bearnita. I’m going to declare that I’m a bear and wear a bear suit to work. In meetings, since bears can’t speak, when I’m asked for input, I’m just going to wave my paw and say ”grrrrrr’. If anyone objects, some more enlightened person in the room will speak up and say ‘That’s not Hyperion anymore, it’s Bearnita’, and Bearnita cannot speak. Now stop othering Bearnita and get back on topic.

        1. You’re on solid legal footing — the Constitution explicitly protects the right to bear arms, and I feel it should be interpreted expansively to protect entire bear suits.

      2. IIRC, there’s already an “other” category with a space for write-in. Which is why, for census purposes, I am a non-indigenous native American.

    3. Well, riddle me this, Batman: For what purpose does the Census Bureau need to collect data on race? We don’t have to worry about who to count as 3/5ths of a person anymore.

      1. How else would they know where to send the money to buy off the local government that then promises to deliver the proper votes?

        1. Indeed. It was a rhetorical question.

          1. * recalibrates rhetorical meter *

      2. Technically they didn’t use race to make the 3/5th determination either – it was slave status.

        /pedant

    4. Tell me there’s a marking for “Dago.” Because my white friends say that I’m not white and my hispanic friends say I’m not hispanic, so where o where are the Dagos to go?

  10. Wow, I haven’t finished reading the encyclical yet, and already all these TV personalities and Internet commenters have read it and assimilated it to the extent that they’re able to comment authoritatively on it.

    I’m really embarrassed that I’m a slower reader than all these experts. I really need to catch up.

    1. I mean, y’all *have* read it, right?

      It is to those who have fully read the encyclical that I suppose myself to be speaking – I know that all these brilliant people would never comment on and analyze something they haven’t read?

      I mean, consider the mockery to which, say, Bill Donohue would be subjected if he denounced *Fifty Shades of Grey* without having read it. He would be denounced as an ignoramus.

      So perhaps those of you who have actually taken the time to read the encyclical can enlighten me about its contents.

      1. We can’t even be bothered to read the articles on this site, and you want us to read a bunch of quasi-metaphorical gibberish from a religion we don’t even believe in?

        1. Ah, I see you *haven’t* read it!

          So on what basis do you claim that the encyclical calls for Gaia-worship? Please provide citations.

          1. Maybe they’re going based off of the Pope’s own words. That he spoke.

            I don’t know, I haven’t watched any of the videos either, but supposedly some people do.

    2. The pope said worship Gaia, fool. Now you have to convert to Wicca. Those are the rules of Catholicism.

      1. So I assume you’ve read the encyclical?

        1. Of course, I’ve read enough of the encyclical to know it’s not a libertarian document.

          But by this time, the Eddie in your head has been telling you that the encyclical is a distillation of Tom Woods and Murray Rothbard.

          So I suppose it’s pointless for me to deny holding such views.

          1. Now, I’m on page 20. What page are you on?

        2. Read it? I ghostwrote it. Once I realized that all Catholics have to follow the Pope, and that converting the Pope to a new religion meant all Catholics have to convert, I realized I was in a race against time against ISIS, who have had their sights set on the Vatican since they came to the same conclusion. It might have been a little sloppy, but the point is that you better get ready to put some horns all your crucifixes and start referring to Mary as the Moon Goddess. Game over, bro.

          1. Shorter ant1sthenes: I haven’t read it.

            That’s OK, I haven’t either, but I’m reading it now.

            1. I’m too drunk to try to understand religion right now. Or not drunk enough. One or the other.

              1. I will consider your detailed rebuttal once I’ve read the encyclical.

                1. Sounds nice. I’m sure it has lots of great stuff. I learned new science facts, like how organic material keeps turning from poop into plants into animals into poop, but any paper we don’t recycle stays paper forever. Also, environmentalism is important because young people want change, but on the other hand, the world is changing too fast these days.

                  Look, unless the Pope decided to finally say “Hey, guys, let’s not have more than, like, 2 kids each, and maybe one oopsie”, all his talk about sacrifice in production and consumption is futile bullshit.

                  If you make another person, to support them either you 1) extract more resources from the Earth, which the pope says is bad because Gaia (sorry, “Mother Earth”, must use the Pope’s language) haz a sad; 2) use technology to make those resources go farther, which the pope says is bad because it’s clever instead of selflessly altruistic; or 3) let everyone have less, which the Pope says is bad because he has to pay lip service to fighting poverty even if he declaims the sorts of tools mankind has developed to fight it (ie, capitalism and birth control).

  11. I’m not sure why I would want to take advice from an old man who the CEO of his company, which explicitly discriminates against women and people of other faiths, is elected by a hand-picked cabal to serve for life in the position, hordes a vast store of wealth while the poor starve, may have aided the Nazis and hasn’t significantly changed the business model in almost 600 years.

    1. “may have aided the Nazis”

      “may have” is a great distancing phrase to avoid taking ownership of an accusation.

      Milton Friedman “may have” aided the Pinochet dictatorship. Of course he didn’t – that’s a Naomi Klein progressive fantasy – and Friedman didn’t even issue an encyclical against Pinochet the way the Pope did against Hitler’s regime:

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/p…..sorge.html

      1. Okay, that’s cool Eddie, now why don’t you tell us about the Church’s involvement with General Franco?

        1. General Franco…the guy who was neutral in World War II and sheltered Jews? That guy?

          1. You sure seem to be obsessively focused on a guy who’s still dead:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=butZyxI-PRs

          2. No, the Franco who evidence now seems to indicate was preparing to comply with Nazi policies on the Jews, if the the war hadn’t turned against them.

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/his…..itler.html

            1. This new information “runs contrary to popular opinion that the Spanish dictator protected Jews from the Holocaust, showing that he was prepared to send Jews resident in Spain to Nazi Germany for extermination.”

              Yes, I may have been quite wrong to rely on the previous consensus on Franco’s activities. Oh, well, I guess that makes me a Nazi or something.

              1. Eddie, you’re grasping. The Church did not align themselves with Franco because they could see the future and thought he might possibly protect some Jews in 10 years.

                1. “The Church did not align themselves with Franco because they could see the future and thought he might possibly protect some Jews in 10 years.”

                  I guess you decisively refuted the Eddie in you head who believes the stuff you just refuted.

                  1. Ot had nothing to do with the Communist faction murdering clergy for being clergy.

            2. Gojira|6.19.15 @ 12:14AM|#
              “No, the Franco who evidence now seems to indicate was preparing to comply with Nazi policies on the Jews, if the the war hadn’t turned against them.”

              Franco was in Hitler’s pocket, *except* that he was not willing to declare war on the Allies; too much money being made by a supposed ‘neutrality’.
              If the Allies hadn’t chased the Germans out of SW France with the landings on the Med’n coast Franco would have happily continued to do whatever Hitler wanted, *except* mobilize the military.
              Keep in mind that France didn’t execute any Jews; they turned them over the the Krauts and thereby ‘kept their hands clean’.

          3. But yeah, keep acting like a totalitarian shitheel gets a pass because he *might* have done one good thing.

            1. Wait, did he shelter Jews or not?

              1. Even saying he did purely for the sake of argument, how does that excuse anything else he did, including his close association with the Vatican? Are you excusing fascism as long as they don’t kill Jews?

                1. As I said below, the Church’s options were fairly limited. Franco on one side, Stalin-backed “loyalists” on the other.

                  Let’s talk about FDR’s choices in WWII between the Soviets and the Nazis before we get hyper-critical of people who had to make a choice in a context of limited options.

                2. Sorry that was poorly phrased. I don’t mean to imply that having a “close association with the Vatican” is somehow bad in and of itself – I meant he had such a relationship and regardless of the Jewish situation in Spain, he did plenty of other terrible shit that the church hand-waived because he pimped them.

                  The only credit to be given is that in the final years of his dictatorship they suddenly became critics.

                  1. IIRC, the Pope congratulated Franco on winning the Spanish civil war – and added a recommendation that Franco give an amnesty to the commies so the country could move forward. Franco censored that last part and proceeded to hound the commies.

          4. “General Franco…the guy who was neutral in World War II and sheltered Jews? That guy?”

            Wait, is your argument that supporting a fascist authoritarian government is okay because the fascist authoritarian didn’t ally himself with Hitler?

            Robert Mugabe didn’t ally himself with Hitler either, but if the Catholics formed an alliance with him, I’d have some pretty harsh questions to ask them.

            1. IIRC, the Catholics, during the Spanish Civil War, allied with the faction which *didn’t* massacre priests and nuns.

              It would have been nice if there had been a libertarian army, opposed to Communists and fascists in equal measure, in which case if the Catholics failed to support them they could have legitimately have been criticized, as opposed to judging them from a distance for backing one of two factions, who were the only two options on the plane of reality where they were forced to live.

              1. After the war, the church had no obligation to go on supporting him. None. They did by choice.

                1. And btw as proof of the above, they did successfully withdraw their support *eventually*, and behold!, communists did not immediately overrun the land.

                  They helped prop up a heinous dictatorship for over 20 years. Just admit it was a shitty mistake and move on.

                  1. I’m open to the possibility that the Pope erred on the diplomatic plane, though I’m curious what distinguished the Church from (say) the USA when it came to recognizing anticommunist, authoritarian regimes?

                    Or are you criticizing the USA as well? You ought to specify.

                    1. “Or are you criticizing the USA as well? You ought to specify.”

                      You mean over there? We’re supposed to look over there?

                    2. Even if the USA did the same thing, it’s a secular power, so it’s entitled to a little more leeway in behaving pragmatically rather than dogmatically.

                    3. ant1sthenes|6.19.15 @ 12:49AM|#
                      “Even if the USA did the same thing, it’s a secular power, so it’s entitled to a little more leeway in behaving pragmatically rather than dogmatically.”

                      Not in love with the slack granted FDR, but more importantly, Eddy is just ducking and weaving, hoping his ‘clever’ bullshit is accepted by someone.
                      Ask him what words are not included in free speech in his ‘perfect world’; you’ll get ducking, weaving, misdirection, lies; the whole load of Eddy’s skills.

                2. As I said, they wanted Franco to amnesty the Commies to start the process of national healing, but Franco wouldn’t do it, preferring to ignore the Pope and continue prosecuting his enemies.

                  1. So they (the church) held on to that hope for 20+ years? Are you sure their support had nothing to do with the Concordat of 1953 that granted the church a bunch of privileges? Because mandating your religion as the only legal one and providing subsidies for it sure seems like a stronger motivating force than, “we hope he’ll pardon the commies”.

                    1. Let me look that up…watch this space…

                    2. Ah, here we go…

                      http://www.vatican.va/roman_cu…..na_sp.html

                      Proclaims Spain basically a Catholic state…government respects the privileges of the Church…provides it with subsidies (in part as compensation for prior regimes’ stealing Church property)…the Church to have a hand in education…access to radio and TV to teach the faith…and so on…nothing I could see about imprisoning non-Catholics…

                      Did I miss anyhing?

      2. How many divisions do you have, Eddy? Your defense is weak.
        No I haven’t read is, won’t bother to. Don’t really care what an old guy with imaginary friends says, except as it affects the electorate.
        He’s an idiot regardless.

        1. “No I haven’t read is, won’t bother to.”

          Now, *there’s* a rallying cry for all lovers of rational thought can get behind!

          The quality of secularist thought has certainly declined since the days of Tom Paine (who wrote detailed analyses of the Bible in order to expose what he deemed its errors), Robert Ingersoll (who likewise showed familiarity with the scriptures he was refuting), Friedrich Nietzsche (who quoted whole passages from the Church fathers in the original Latin), Bertrand Russell (who cited – and deplored – Papal declarations against socialism).

          All these secularists thought they had at least some responsibility to know about the works they were refuting.

          Modern secularists have an advantage over their predecessors, since now we know that familiarity with the works you’re criticizing is no longer necessary, and all that’s needed is the FEELZ.

          “I know with perfect faith that the sky-daddy bleevers are wrong, so I certainly won’t bother my pretty little head with analyzing what they actually said – I will rely on my intuition and feelings!”

          1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.18.15 @ 11:56PM|#
            “Now, *there’s* a rallying cry for all lovers of rational thought can get behind!”

            Gee, Eddy, why did you leave off the rest of the comment?
            “Don’t really care what an old guy with imaginary friends says, except as it affects the electorate.”

            Might it be because you’re a lying POS?

            1. I love you too, Sevo baby.

              1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 12:47AM|#
                “I love you too, Sevo baby.”

                Yes, Eddy, I’m sure to a lying POS like you, that gives you some excuse, right?

                1. *smooches*

                  By the way, when will you start to ignore me?

                  Because I sure don’t want to be thrown into that briar patch!

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 1:11AM|#
                    “*smooches*”

                    It’s a bitch when you’re called on your bullshit, isn’t it, Eddy?

          2. Now, *there’s* a rallying cry for all lovers of rational thought can get behind!

            Rational thought?

            From a cult leader with a funny hat who believes in magic? That’s rich!

      3. Oh, and BTW Eddy, I’m still waiting to hear which words are not included in free speech in your ‘perfect world’. Did you get the list together?

        1. Ah, you’re referring to when I said that in a perfect world (free of corrupt cops) I’d punish people who cursed on the public streets and sidewalks? And, incidentally, added that I *wouldn’t* punished such people in the real world in which we live, given my lack of faith in the cops to fairly and evenhandedly enforce such laws?

          1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.18.15 @ 11:58PM|#
            “Ah, you’re referring to when I said that in a perfect world (free of corrupt cops) I’d punish people who cursed on the public streets and sidewalks? And, incidentally, added that I *wouldn’t* punished such people in the real world in which we live, given my lack of faith in the cops to fairly and evenhandedly enforce such laws?”

            Yes, Eddy, I am TAKING YOU AT YOUR WORD.
            Now, in this perfect world, what words are not allowed under the concept of free speech? Is that difficult to understand?

            1. How about, “yo momma so stupid, she’s dumber than you?”

              1. [that insult is just a placeholder until I can think of something more clever…watch this space]

              2. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 12:09AM|#
                “How about, “yo momma so stupid, she’s dumber than you?””

                How clever, Eddy.
                So you admit you’re a stupid shit who should be ignored?

                1. Wait, I think I found just the right insults, click on this:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0xq2Xg-_sw

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 12:15AM|#
                    “Wait, I think I found just the right insults, click on this:”

                    Wait, I think I just found out that Eddy is a stupid shit who should be ignored:
                    http://www.irelevantlink.com

                    1. Go ahead, then, ignore me…I *dare* you!

                    2. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 12:47AM|#
                      “Go ahead, then, ignore me…I *dare* you!”

                      Sorry, my mistake.
                      Any claim an asshole like you makes should be treated as a claim made by an asshole.
                      You should be called on it, given all sorts of ‘corrections’ when you try the duck and weave and finally simply never allowed to forget what you post.
                      Now, Eddy, in your perfect world, what words can get someone executed? Once more, not ‘I was just joshing’ bullshit, Eddy, what words are worthy of execution?

                    3. “what words are worthy of execution?”

                      How about:

                      “Sevo, you ignorant slut, I was talking about a purely hypothetical world of incorrupt cops and intelligent Internet commenters.”

                      OR

                      “Look, if I inflict punishment on you in a purely imaginary world, you can always retaliate by pointing your finger at me and saying, ‘bang, bang, you’re dead!’ An imaginary punishment is, I admit, fully entitled to imaginary retaliation.”

                      OR

                      “Oh, for fuck’s sake, Sevo, if the fantasy Eddie in your head differs from the Eddie who exists in the real world, then a *sane* person would conclude that there’s something wrong with the fantasy, not that there’s something wrong with reality”

                      OR

                      “Sevo, I’m asking this strictly in the spirit of scientific curiosity, why don’t you fuck yourself?”

                    4. Eddie, you are a mendacious cunt, completely without principles. You are beyond pathetic.

          2. Notorious G.K.C.|6.18.15 @ 11:58PM|#
            “Ah, you’re referring to when I said that in a perfect world (free of corrupt cops) I’d punish people who cursed on the public streets and sidewalks?”

            Now, Eddy, let’s try this one more time.
            In this perfect world, WHI

          3. (don’t hit the tab key!)
            Notorious G.K.C.|6.18.15 @ 11:58PM|#
            “Ah, you’re referring to when I said that in a perfect world (free of corrupt cops) I’d punish people who cursed on the public streets and sidewalks?”

            Now, Eddy, let’s try this one more time.
            In this perfect world, WHICH WORDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH?

            1. Like I said, I would exclude –

              “Yo mama’s legs are like the library, always open to the public.”

              “Yo mama is so fat she sat on Wal Mart and lowered the prices.”

              “Yo Mama So Fat she has mass whether the Higgs Boson exists or not.”

              “Yo mama’s like the Pillsbury dough boy…. everybody pokes her.”

              http://www.jokes4us.com/yomama…..mamajokes/

              1. And now Dane Cook just called in to point out that you have a tragic sense of humor. So there’s that. You’re a bad person and you should feel bad.

                1. ant1sthenes|6.19.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                  “And now Dane Cook just called in to point out that you have a tragic sense of humor. So there’s that. You’re a bad person and you should feel bad.”
                  You’re too kind.
                  Eddy proposes throwing people in jail for words he doesn’t like. And when the shitbag is called on it, he pulls the John Stewart bullshit of ‘I was only joking’.
                  Fuck assholes who would throw people in jail for speaking certain words. Shits like that deserve every bit of disdain we can throw their way.

                  1. No one important gives a shit what Gilbert thinks, unlike the Pope, and hate is toxic.

                    I just feel bad for him; we engage in some mildly-bad-natured ribbing, and he feels like he has to read this abomination so that he can rebut us. But he can’t possibly rebut us, because where he hears “God’s chosen representative on Earth just declared black is white and up is down” and feels like he has to identify the error, we just hear “Overrated celebrity espouses left-wing, environmentalist talking points. In other news, the sun came up today.”.

                    He’ll read, study, consult different works, develop a complex explanation that synthesizes old-school conservatism with the Pope’s opinion, and we’ll yawn and say “cool story, bro”. And there’s something about the tragedy of that situation that makes me feel sympathetic. Maybe it’s because a lot of libertarians are in the same boat with the general public.

                    1. “He’ll read, study, consult different works, develop a complex explanation”

                      Oh, no, not a complex explanation! Anything but that!

                2. “You’re a bad person and you should feel bad.”

                  Dude, you’re talking to a Catholic. You may as well be carrying coals to Newcastle.

                  1. See, that wasn’t so bad.

              2. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 12:51AM|#
                “Like I said, I would exclude -”

                So if someone spoke these words, you would have them thrown in jail? Am I right, Eddy, that these are the words that would be outlawed in your perfect world?
                I’m just taking you at your word, Eddy; you claimed that in your perfect world, people would not be allowed to say certain things, and that means people with guns will throw them in jail.
                So, Eddy, are these the words that would cause that punishment, or are you a slimy POS?
                Just taking you at your word, Eddy.

                1. Are you feeling anger, my brother?

                  1. Notorious G.K.C.|6.19.15 @ 1:13AM|#
                    “Are you feeling anger, my brother?”

                    Are you felling stupid, asshole?
                    Now, once again:
                    What words land someone in jail in your perfect word?
                    Is that hard to understand?

            2. Now, Eddy, let’s try this one more time.
              In this perfect world, WHICH WORDS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE CONCEPT OF FREE SPEECH?

              That’s easy Sevo…whichever words the socialist in the funny hat decides he doesn’t like.

      4. “may have” is a great distancing phrase to avoid taking ownership of an accusation.

        No, Eddie, that’s what you say when there is no conclusive proof. It’s alleged.

        Now go and give me 20 hail Marys for being such an insufferable twat.

        1. “It’s alleged.”

          Yes, and “it’s alleged” that Milton Friedman supported Pinochet.

          And it’s alleged that yo momma so fat, she has her own zip code.

          1. *Her ass* has it’s own zip code. Tell the fucking punch line correctly, you dolt.

            That’s another 20.

            1. I’m *so* sorry.

              I meant to say, yo momma so ugly, medieval stoneworkers keep asking her to model for them when they make gargoyles.

              1. Why are you making fun of my dead, saintly mother?

                1. Heh, heh, I meant yo great-great-great grandma, you know, the one who was ugly.

                  Sorry about that.

  12. I think the pope just realized that environmentalism was basically a religion, so he might as well coopt it. Catholics are good at that. I mean, we got Christmas, Easter, and half a dozen other traditions the same way.

    1. Not to mention most of the early saints. Roll into a pagan town, canonize the local Deities, add their holy days to the calendar, and bada boom instant pseudo-Catholics. It was probably the most successful conversion strategy ever employed by a religion because the children not knowing anything different were real Catholics.

    2. His arguments are essentially the same as greens — he conflates intentions with outcomes, as though if we really really cared about the planet, we couldn’t dick things up just as badly through well-intentioned ignorance.

  13. Oh, by the way, if you didn’t know this already, Martin O’Malley is a fucking idiot.

    “Martin O’Malley: Zero out fossil fuels by 2050”

    In case you’re wondering, no, he offered no coherent plan to make this happen. His plan is unicorn farts and rainbows:

    “Saving the world is a goal worthy of a great people. It is also good business for the United States of America.
    I believe, within 35 years, our country can, and should, be 100% powered by clean energy, supported by millions of new jobs. To reach this goal we must accelerate that transition starting now.

    As president, on day one, I would use my executive power to declare the transition to a clean energy future the number one priority of our Federal Government.

    I would create a new Clean Energy Jobs Corps to partner with communities to retrofit buildings to be more energy efficient, improve local resiliency, create new green spaces, and restore and expand our forests so they can absorb more greenhouse gases.”

    Wow. You’ll ‘make it a number one priority’ and ‘set up a clean energy jobs corps?’ How can this brilliant plan fail?

    1. If only the current occupant had warned us in advance of his intentions to abuse his “executive power”.

      1. Uh, he did. He promised he would destroy the coal industry any way he could.

    2. Of course it’s complete shit. And he knows it. he might as well be selling monorails.

      It only has to sound good for the rubes and boobs, so they buy in.

    3. I work at a natural gas fired power plant in The People’s Republic of California. You can have the country running on a mandated 100% clean energy program within a decade. The question then becomes, how do you plan to ration energy?

      1. Simple.
        Those with guanxi get it. Tough shit for the rest.

      2. how do you plan to ration energy?

        By alphabetical order and campaign donation size.

      3. I think we talked about it before, but I drink a lot.

        Where do you live?

  14. Under this new Popelaw will we be allowed to chip wood or not?

    1. Depends.
      Is it Friday? Did you say the magic words and spin three times clockwise while gazing at the effigies?
      There’s more, but that’s a start.

    2. Does he shit in the woods?

  15. OT, but I’ve been watching this like day-time TV.
    IMF chief says pay your damn debts and it’d be better if the Greeks sent adults to negotiate, Greek PM responds with the comment that if the EU just ignored the pay-by date, everything would be fine:
    “Varoufakis Says Debt Exchange Would End Greek Crisis”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/…..eek-crisis

    I’m not about to defend the IMF, but it appears she has correctly identified one of the problems.

    1. I have it on good authority that as long as money is spent on investmentsentitlements, then deficits do not matter.

      1. I could be fooled again, but it looks like the Euros are calling Varoufikis’ bluff.
        He claimed that if the Greeks bailed, all hell would break loose, but the market yawned. And the Euro reps said ‘please come back when you have something to talk about’.

  16. “Yeah, bad hair day, I GET IT.”

    um, someone’s just a *little* too self-conscious

    i mean, its not like ur a celebrity, welch.

    /teenage gilmore

  17. This is why Catholicism is the second worst religion after Islam.

  18. If the pope is so concerned with the poor let him take some of the vast tax free wealth of the Vatican and do something to help the poor. If history is correct the reason so many people fled Europe to America was the persecution of the people BY the church. When I was 18 some 50 years ago I went to a Catholic church to have a St. Christopher blessed for a friend. A sprinkle of holy water a cross sign made in the air and prompt demand for 20 dollars. That was was 2 1/2 days pay back then. I am not anti religion even though I myself am not religous but I think the pope should practice what he preachs or just shut up and live his lavish lifestyle in silence.

  19. I buy almost everything except food and clothing from online auctions most people arenâ????t aware of the almost I unbelievable deals that they can get from online auction sites the site that has the best deals is
    BEST PROFIT DEAL CHECK ,,,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.workweb40.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.