US Election 2016

[BruceVC]

 

 

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. 

 

'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 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

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. 

 

'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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

'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 

[Meshugger]

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

'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.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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. 

 

'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.

 

Okay this is a first., you make a post and when I ask you what it means you cant tell me...and when I point this out I become the troll 

 

Yet its your post, Meshugger this is  a new low for you 

[Meshugger]

lol, like clockwork.

 

You didn't even read my post before responding.

 

 

It's clear as day a criticism of wage slavery and the removal of the human element from work.

Edited May 9, 2016 by Meshugger

[BruceVC]

 

lol, like clockwork.

 

You didn't even read my post before responding.

 

 

It's clear as day a criticism of wage slavery and the removal of the human element from work.

 

Okay no more, you win. I dont have the energy today for endless repetition of the same question ....next time but not today 

[BruceVC]

http://buzzsouthafrica.com/vuwani-violence-more-schools-burnt/

 

We have a major problem with kids not being educated ....does this link seem right?

[Raithe]

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

Yep. And I could just buy a Powerball ticket. I could win. 

[ShadySands]

... and may the odds be ever in your favor

[Leferd]

237 million to 1 odds will still get you a winner.

[Guard Dog]

If I'm going to write in a candidate I'm writing Mickey Mouse.

 

MOUSE IN '16!

 

PUT THE LITTLE BLACK MOUSE IN THE BIG WHITE HOUSE!

 

[Wrath of Dagon]

http://buzzsouthafrica.com/vuwani-violence-more-schools-burnt/

 

We have a major problem with kids not being educated ....does this link seem right?

Sounds like the future of America.

 

Edit:

 

 

 

She could write him in, but could she spell his name?

Edited May 9, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

I do think that it's a touch funny that right now the state of North Carolina's Republican governor is using the justification "We're asking the Federal courts to clarify the law"... while other parts of his party are saying that that sort of action is "Legislating from the bench" (see Kansas)

[Hiro Protagonist]

 

Her last name is interesting.

[Raithe]

For the continued sniping from the side-seats... 

 

 

[Hurlshort]

This has been playing out in the wings:

 

[Amentep]

Right, and you (to a lesser extent than others) are trying to have her prosecuted under a rule set that was devised and kept on the books when Stealing a Horse was a justifiably hangable offense. When women couldn't vote and renting a room at a hotel as a married couple (when you're not) meant you were married.

IIRC, legally the penalty for horse thievery was not death.  Hanging of horse thieves was done by vigilantes (even if some were "lawmen") not by the state.

 

And while universal voting for Women wasn't ratified until the 1920s, there are records of women voting in 1756 (Lydia Taft) and New Jersey law gave women property owners (of property above a certain size) the vote until 1807 when laws officially disenfranchised women. 

 

I'd be curious to know which states had laws about unmarried couples being married due to virtue of renting a room together.  Most of the common law marriage laws I've heard of have a cohabitation rule that would not be met by sleeping together in a hotel room (and would also result in a lot of John-Prostitute marriages).

Edited May 10, 2016 by Amentep

[Hurlshort]

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

Why?

[Amentep]

Thanks, yeah I meant 1920s.  Typoed, but now corrected.

[Hurlshort]

 

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

Why?

 

 

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

[Amentep]

 

 

I assume you meant the 1920's for women's suffrage?

 

Hard to imagine we are less than a century removed from that.

Why?

 

 

Because a century is a relatively short amount of time in the grand scheme of things?

 

 

Indeed. Just imagine if Victoria Woodhull had won the presidency in 1872.  Or in 1884 or 1892.