Meshugger

Idpol in action. Exactly, why can't the aloof old guy understand that some people have to be more equal than others? #progressive #virtuesignaling

Oh please. We don't kill dogs anymore. They are simply being terminated, retired or passed on.

I wonder how the police officers could even keep a straight face when knocking on the guy's door. "Greetings, i've heeeed that yerr dawwg's been doin sum Hitlah-salutes on da Internet? We caaant havv that nau, cann we?" What a time to be alive.

Psst. Russia can sterilize entire panet from any presence of life, and your link above is not about such secret weapon. "Satan 2" is just ordinary Russian nukes and all information about this weapon in your sorce looks correct. Yep, Murika/Nato have so backward technologies. Don't worry, i know that our love is inpenetrable to any missile and it will conquer all in the end. Joking aside, i didn't claim that it was a secret weapon. Rather I am interested in the part of multiple warheads having the capability for the following: How?

"Satan 2" to be introduced: http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russias_New_ICBM_Sarmat_can_penetrate_defense_shield_wipe_out_Texas_999.html Nevermind the the dubious link, is it even technologically possible or financially feasible for this to exist outside of propaganda? I am no expert in ballistics or aeroneutical engineering to refute or understand this completely.

I know that it might sound like music to your ears, but this is really getting out of hand

I'm going to play the devil's advocate and claim that women's suffrage was the natural conclusion of men making them equals among themselves and thus making marriage no longer a privilege for women to elevate their status or themselves. Ergo, joining the workforce and being able to vote were the only options left for such values. It's your own fault, men

"The Sacrifice" (1986) by Tarkovsky The camera-work was sublime, like old paintings and motifs come to life. The sound and the acting was tremendous as well. The story and theme is probably the simplest of all of his movies, which is probably why it is considered his "weakest" movie. Highly recommended though, i mean just look at this and awe:

lol, like clockwork. You didn't even read my post before responding.

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay Okay so first but serious criticism ...its very difficult to even understand his point because he uses his own strange terms and vernacular to describe things and he is well known for personal bias ...so what does this even mean human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine ( what is he suggesting....human beings are not cogs ) human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process (please dont tell he has an issue with people getting jobs ) society of freedom and free association ( please dont tell me he thinks the USA isn't free? ) As i said, you have to understand what you're ciriticing in order to provide with a counter-argument. I will not do your homework for you. Interesting so you also have no clue what he means...I dont feel so bad now Why do you lie? See post http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85931-us-election-2016/?p=1808608 for my criticism on Chomsky. Yes but what I am missing is these 3 points ...you dont explain what they are But let me let you off the hook, I didnt expect you to know because if I didn't know its unlikely you would know as these points are ambiguous What's that smell? A possible entrapment based on an interpretation of an interpretation? Why yes it is! And how it smells like lies and lies, in fact, it reeks. It's clear as day a criticism of wage slavery and the removal of the human element from work. Oh please Bruce, you're insulting everyone's intelligence now. You're just sniveling as usual when your trolling isn't working the way you want it to.

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay Okay so first but serious criticism ...its very difficult to even understand his point because he uses his own strange terms and vernacular to describe things and he is well known for personal bias ...so what does this even mean human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine ( what is he suggesting....human beings are not cogs ) human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process (please dont tell he has an issue with people getting jobs ) society of freedom and free association ( please dont tell me he thinks the USA isn't free? ) As i said, you have to understand what you're ciriticing in order to provide with a counter-argument. I will not do your homework for you. Interesting so you also have no clue what he means...I dont feel so bad now Why do you lie? See post http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85931-us-election-2016/?p=1808608 for my criticism on Chomsky.

'Now a federated, decentralised system of free associations, incorporating economic as well as other social institutions, would be what I refer to as anarcho-syndicalism; and it seems to me that this is the appropriate form of social organisation for an advanced technological society in which human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine. There is no longer any social necessity for human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process; that can be overcome and we must overcome it to be a society of freedom and free association, in which the creative urge that I consider intrinsic to human nature will in fact be able to realize itself in whatever way it will.'kay Okay so first but serious criticism ...its very difficult to even understand his point because he uses his own strange terms and vernacular to describe things and he is well known for personal bias ...so what does this even mean human beings do not have to be forced into the position of tools, of cogs in the machine ( what is he suggesting....human beings are not cogs ) human beings to be treated as mechanical elements in the productive process (please dont tell he has an issue with people getting jobs ) society of freedom and free association ( please dont tell me he thinks the USA isn't free? ) As i said, you have to understand what you're ciriticing in order to provide with a counter-argument. I will not do your homework for you.

That's his quote and that's what he believes. I find his ideals interesting in themselves (kinda like Star Trek), but unattainable due to the plurality of civilizations and nations with different moral principles in terms of ingroup/outgroups. He also hates pornography. //Edit: But he is right in his criticisms from time to time. For example "Manufactured Consent" highlights quite well how policy can be created through cooperation between the political power and the mainstream media. It's not an opinion-piece, it's a gathering of empirical data on how news were created and to what amount. Kinda like what social sciences should do.

I found this stat to be particularly telling: I've got a lot of different thoughts on this. I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed. They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas. As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all. But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere. The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much. Chomsky annoys me with his anti-Western sentiment yet he lives and studies in the US and attacks its core principles He is a hypocrite, why doesnt he go live in Russia then? It's because you think that his criticism means that he is a supporter of oppressive regimes when he's actually basing his attacks on anarcho-syndicalist ideals. If you want critisize the guy, at least understand what you're up against.

That's because the "new-left" are primarily academic in background and are more comfortable rummaging through the writings of 19th century philosophers for phrases to give their mundane ideas a revolutionary appearance. The effects of this are a completely disorganized and impotent left far more interested in squabbles over ideological purity than revolution or even reform. The aversion to weapons is merely a symptom of this complacency. Pretty much. They are larping as philosopher kings without clothes.

I found this stat to be particularly telling: I've got a lot of different thoughts on this. I would definitely say my history teachers in college leaned heavily towards liberalism, although I never bought into the whole idea that we were being brainwashed. They certainly weren't as aggressive as some of the conservative mouth pieces like Rush LImbaugh with their agendas. As a teacher myself, all I really want is for students to see a wide range of opinions and have the critical thinking skills to process them all. But I'm not teaching at the same level, so it's a very different atmosphere. The reason why there are so little right-leaning people in the social sciences is because a lot of the material and the theories they are working with are based on political agendas suited for the left ideals instead of pursuit of empirical knowledge. Chomsky have critized them for this and Foucault even admitted as much.

The thing is the left is not anti-gun, its anti-arsenal and despite the evidence many Americans are opposed to this and see this as some sort of Constitutional and Federal overreach...the resistance to something prudent seems almost orchestrated But please dont tell me you also want a gun now ? Because we dont need the Left for this one, no you dont need a gun....trust me

The notion of the left being anti-gun is a relatively new phenomenon, historically speaking. Any old leftie knows that a gun/rifle belongs in the home of every worker for whenever the power of the those that own the means of production become too much in their favour and a good uprising is in need. These new anti-gun leftist seems to live in the bubble of 'their people' are being in control of society's instiutions and authorities. Oh well, they will have to learn the hard way in the long run.

That's it, i've officially gotten old. Back in the Bush years the mere mention of Ann Coulter made me either cringe or laugh dismissally. Now i am finding myself mostly agreeing with her. Better just accept it and start sitting on the porch with my double barel shotgun in my lap, staring down the street for any young punk daring to get to close to my lawn. All while I occisionally whine to the missus about the neighbours are having such a racket with their "Hip-hop-bop-scipidi-dop-bop"-music whenever she brings me my beer. ****.

Bernie as VP to Hillary? That would be betrayal of ciceroan proportions. How about "no".

That's downright revolting. I have no words.

IIRC, the FBI can only give a report of their investigation and its recommendations. The Attourny General then makes the decision based on the report to press charges or not. But lets say that the report is a bit vague and there's a whole lot of "willfully nots" and the Attourney General does not press charges, followed by the chief of FBI immidiately resigning from his post in protest. That would be an interesting scenario to say the least.

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton. "Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved. Well the article cannot be considered " worthless spin " if the FBI decides she has no charges to face, in fact to suggest the legal outcome of this whole incident is just spin is a pointless comment because the whole outcome was " would she be charged " But also guys of course there is a difference between someone who knows they breaking the law and someone who may not be aware that there behavior is illegal ? It reminds me of the numerous times I have said things like " Trump is responsible for the level of violence and protests at his rallies ".....but I cannot say with certainty that Trump actually expected this outcome and many of you guys feel he should not feel responsible at all So back to Hilary, I dont believe she thought she was doing anything illegal, I'm not sure if any of the FBI findings will become available for public scrutiny so this entire debate is very subjective as it really depends on how you view her So then if we have no way to see the real evidence then surly we need to trust the FBI has investigated this case and made a fair finding 1. I'll wait for the report to be concluded and an official announcement from FBI. 2. As i have pointed out before, it doesn't matter when an elected official or someone holding public office does something willfully or not in terms work procedures. They are accountable either way and that's when the lawyers step in. 3. Trump is not an elected official who has been handling sensitive and confidential government information on a private server.

Yeah, the whole article is worthless spin. Unnamed, anonymous US officials say "no evidence that Hillary wilfully broke the law" is not the same as "no evidence that Hillary broke the law, at all". Pro Clinton people will say there won't be charges right up until the point the issue is actually decided publicly, that's just the nature of being pro Clinton. "Willfully broke the law" sounds like lawyer-speak. You can probably twist and turn it depending on the level of accountability involved.

I think we're talking about different things here. I am talking about the fracturation of homogenous societies into heterogenous ones and the shift of financial and political power to outside ones borders and its corresponding natural response to it. Felt there was a disconnect. To paraphrase: I wrote, "won't somebody please think of the children?" and posted music videos on teaching them well. You asked, Teach them what?" Ah, I was under the impression that you responded in context of what was discussed previously in the thread. I thought that it was strange that i agreed with you. Damn, can't have it all.