Page 2 of 2

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:16 pm
by barbarianhorde
promethean75 wrote:That probably hurt marx more than me, even if he's rolling in his grave right now. These 'modern' so called marxists are even worse than the modern nietzscheans. My sympathy for ol karl just went up a couple notches after watching that video. Poor bastard. He was a couple hundred years too early.... or too late.

Well Im glad I showed you.
Now you know what we've been dealing with.

Forget about poor Karl, think of the children.

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:23 pm
by promethean75
That's what we're doing.... trying to unfuck history so that more children have a better quality life. The masses, the rabble, the mediocrity... that's the bulk of mankind, so that's what we've got to work with. The disease of capitalism is just a dialectical stage that'll take a while to get past, that's all.

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:46 pm
by barbarianhorde
promethean75 wrote:That's what we're doing.... trying to unfuck history so that more children have a better quality life. The masses, the rabble, the mediocrity... that's the bulk of mankind, so that's what we've got to work with. The disease of capitalism is just a dialectical stage that'll take a while to get past, that's all.

There is no hope if even these examples don't make you see that there is something you need to look at, as a Marxist.

I really can't fathom how Marx could be as blind as to address the production process by completely ignoring what is being produced, and why. That really reeks of deliberately messing up peoples minds and value systems.

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 3:53 pm
by barbarianhorde
Marx: 1+1= not 2, that is evil oppression, 1+1 is actually -8674895698357987. Now avenge yourselves on the ones who work with 1+1=2!

:-? :-? :-? :-?

and then people start actually DOING that.


Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 8:30 am
by Chakra Superstar
This is like watching 90 year olds trying to use a computer :oops: :lol:

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 10:40 am
by Chakra Superstar

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 1:03 pm
by MagsJ
Chakra Superstar wrote:The title of this article :-k ... CY20101009



Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 3:54 pm
by Meno_
Now that Trumpianism has lost the sharp edge that cuts BOTH ways, and has apparently cut the emperor's clothes diagonally, being shifted from politics as art to another partially disguised out fit, ( the center cut, revealing too much distinction between finger size and the one which exposes too much of women's true definition of 'love');

The cut between the usefulness of appealing aspects of imperialistic cuts into the 'other races' -indicating the transcendence of truth behind equinimical racial boundaries which dare not support America as first and foremost, THIS: could be real funny, if it wasn't really so true!
Reality takes a real bite out of humor, never the less there is some deep seated effect here, that tickles the funny bone:

The Trump Impeachment
Unfit To Lead
Donald Trump is challenging Nancy Pelosi to a game of impeachment chicken
By Mark Sumner / Daily Kos (06/11/2019) - June 11, 2019548

Donald Trump’s attorneys have filed their brief contesting a congressional subpoena seeking Trump’s financial records, and the contents of that filing might as well be titled “We double dog dare you to impeach.” Short of impeachment, Trump’s attorneys argue, Congress has no authority to investigate criminal behavior on the part of the executive … and yes, that includes Watergate and Whitewater.

As USA Today reporter Brad Heath details, the argument from Trump’s lawyers is that the Constitution gives the authority to investigate criminal matters exclusively to the executive branch. That would be the same people who have already said that they are not allowed to bring charges against Trump. Which is handy.

In this filing, Trump’s attorneys are claiming it’s not a matter of whether or not Trump broke the law. The argument here is that even if he did, Congress can’t do anything about it, because “Congress is simply not allowed to conduct law-enforcement investigations of the President, and the district court’s invocations of Whitewater and Watergate do not suggest otherwise.”

Actually, Whitewater and Watergate would seem to be pretty good indications that the Congress can launch just such an investigation. Except, argue Trump’s attorneys, those cases did not involve subpoenas issued by Congress that were “resisted” or “litigated.” In other words, Watergate and Whitewater aren’t good examples, because Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton are wusses who didn’t fight hard enough to obstruct the progress of congressional investigations. Or, as Trump declared when talking about Nixon, “He left. I don’t leave. Big difference. I don’t leave.”

The fact that Trump’s attorneys note that Congress could also seek to examine the accounting records of Supreme Court justices is a good indicator that the White House isn’t about to stop before Justice Beer gets a chance to comment on this case, but there’s one point that the documents make even more clear: Everything they’ve said about Congress’ power to subpoena or investigate Trump goes by the wayside if the House opens an impeachment inquiry.

This argument is, not at all coincidentally, the one that was being pressed by Republican Reps. Mark Meadows and Jim Jordan at recent House hearings. Because Trump is convinced that an impeachment inquiry would be a good thing. And his actions are designed to make it happen.

The argument that opening an impeachment inquiry would guarantee a better reception of congressional subpoenas in court has also been one of those ideas pushed by the Democratic chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jerry Nadler. And he’s not wrong. As Trump’s attorneys point out in their filing, the one absolutely clear ruling showing that Congress does have the authority to seek testimony and documents in an investigation came during Watergate, and in that case, the D. C. Circuit Court was explicit in saying that the Congress had opened an impeachment inquiry. The court did not say that, had there not been such an inquiry underway, the subpoena would have been rejected. But because it was noted, everyone seems to accept the idea that this single unchallenged example is enough to prove, “Want investigative authority? First open an impeachment inquiry.”

As Politico reports, Trump’s “trash talking” of Congress and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is intended for the same purpose: to goad Democratic leadership into signing on to beginning an inquiry. Because Trump has seized on the fight between Bill Clinton and the Newt Gingrich-led Republican House and “how a cascading series of investigations helped propel President Bill Clinton to a second term in 1996 and then led to historic setbacks for House Republican[s] in the 1998 midterms when they ran on a platform to impeach the Democratic president.” According to the people around him, Trump is convinced that Democrats won’t be able to come up with anything that the Republican Senate can’t dismiss with enough scorn to turn any inquiry into a “big win” for Trump.

So Trump isn’t just obstructing the House investigation into his actions and throwing every possible roadblock in the way of anyone seeing his financial records. He’s also actively taunting Democrats, implying that they don’t dare impeach someone as popular, and successful, and handsome as Trump … while getting both his attorneys and his congressional proxies to dangle “start an inquiry if you want to learn anything” candy in front of them.

There are only a few things wrong with this plan.

First, just because Trump is convinced something is true does not make it so. See the climate crisis. See trade policy. See … anything at all. An impeachment inquiry wouldn’t even have to generate new material. If it could simply get enough of the public to tune in to what has already appeared in the Mueller report, it might move the public opinion dials far enough that even the Mitch McConnell-led Senate would have a hard time closing its eyes.

Second, pushing Democrats into opening an inquiry because their subpoenas are proving ineffective without it first requires that those subpoenas be ineffective. And, so far, that hasn’t been the case. After all, Trump’s attorneys are making their “Congress can’t do nuttin’” argument as part of an appeal. Short of being thrown a life preserver through the intervention of the court McConnell helped him stack, Trump is likely to find that no federal court is going to be in agreement with the position taken by his legal team. William Barr may believe in an all-powerful autocrat with a license to rob, cheat, and kill. No one else does.

Third, Trump doesn’t understand the nature of impeachment. Opening an inquiry isn’t the same thing as bringing articles to the floor of the House. If Nadler and others sway Pelosi into saying the I-word, it doesn’t mean that Trump is going to get to take a seat in the Senate while Republicans conduct a roast of the House speaker. It only means that any argument that congressional subpoenas lack authority will no longer be an argument. And those financial records will all come tumbling out.

And fourth … there’s always the chance they could impeach the bastard.

And finally, in the humble opinion of this author (me) the overall popularism, may be judged retroactively, more swayed by the generated foam of this turbulent sea of political adventurism posing as black humor, then by the reality of failed pseudo platform's comimg through, in the works.

Re: Comedy

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 11:05 pm
by promethean75
:lol: =D>