fauxlaw

Good line. Well done. I'll reply to your question in your last post to me shortly.

Re: your #28

Yes, Marx is describing capitalism, which he opposes. But, as I have quoted, and remarked afterward, Marx does not understand how capitalism works. He assumes he does, but, as I noted, he never ran a lemonade stand. Of course, that reference is very simplistic, but at the core, running a lemonade stand differs little in principle from running Apple, or any other enterprise.

What makes my lemonade stand better than Karl's? He makes lemonade from a processed lemon flavor, plus water and sugar. Mine is from fresh lemons, filtered water, infused by lemon zest, and sugar. Plus, I add some fresh lime. My lemonade just tastes better, by innovation, because I am ambitious. Karl thinks all there is to capitalism is production and sales. Pay the workers [the proletariate] their percentage, and he [the bourgeois], reaps the rest in profit. Karl ignores that he must innovate a better-tasting lemonade, hire R&D, marketing, purchasing, material handling strategy, production [the workers], inventory, shipping, customer service. Karl ignores that all of those necessities of the enterprise, other than labor, are expensed out of the bourgeois' profit. This is all very clearly explained by its lack of acknowledgement in The Communist Manifesto. Marx doesn't get it, so describes capitalism entirely incorrectly. Karl thinks, with his too-simple description of capitalism, that he can just absorb ownership of all private enterprises, and his problem of capitalism is solved, repackages this concept and calls it socialism/communism, and starts on his merry way. And this is why soc/com never succeeds for more than a couple of generations. As Margaret Thatcher [former PM of Great Britain] once said, when you run out of other people's money, your system collapses because you don't know how to produce wealth, you just know how to spend it.

Re-read my post #25: To wit, Marx said, and I quoted [from Communist Manifesto] "...nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it [capital] be set in motion." Words mean things. All means all, not some, not "relatively." ALL. Is it that hard to understand Marx? Take him at his word. He's really very simplistic. More a simpleton, but, that's just my view.

I am not going to spill out a dissertation on the Communist Manifesto. If you have not read it, read it. That's the best research - your own. I'll give you one paragraph, but you must take it from there:

"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society, can it be set in motion."

Sounds convincing, but Marx was never a capitalist - he never ran a lemonade stand - so both his proposition, and conclusion, are wrong. No, capital is not a collective product. He may have known better, but was lying to convince, because he was an academic - people who claim expertise, but who also never ran a lemonade stand. Capital exists as a potential supply that is the by-product, not the sole purpose of private enterprise. The purpose of private enterprise is to sustain and increase enterprise [and wealth]. Marx partially begins right, that many members [individuals] of society may engage in the production of capital, i.e. the creation of wealth, but then he blows it to hell by saying "nay, in the last resort, only by... all members of society, can it [capital, or wealth [that is what he s truly talking about] be set in motion." No, no, no, and no, worlds without end! It takes the ambition of one individual to decide to produce and sell, and another individual to decide to buy what is being produced and sold. You multiply those individual transactions to create wealth, individual wealth, and it may be shared, but it is not the ownership of the collection of "all members of society." Both buyer and seller, multiplied by as many individuals who wish to participate, benefit. Those who do not participate [there are many of these types] should not likewise benefit to the same degree. Who, after all, builds our infrastructure, for example? If you say Government, you're already in the weeds. Government lets out the contracts, but private enterprise does the building and you and I pay for it. We have access to it when complete, but that does not make of us a collective, either, because we can choose to not make use of it, too.

Sometimes, even designers, who entrepreneurs hire to flesh out an idea into "practical" design, goof up. I put that in quotes, because I spent a career in manufacturing troubleshooting. Most designers think production process is the problem with product failure. Yes, that is one fault, but another is design failure. Designers are famous for never assembling or using their design as they describe it to be used. I had a number of occasions when designers would ask me, a troubleshooter, what their designed product weighed. "You don't know?" I'd ask. "No," was always the reply. I knew, because I had weighed it. They did not. "There's the scale, and there's your product. You weigh it. For the first time." I would try to assemble a product [as a customer would receive and assemble it]. I concluded the designer[s] never did it themselves. Absurd. But, that's Marx, too. I do run a lemonade stand [figuratively], so I know how this shyte works.

In the Communist Manifesto. Marx did not use the term "hive-mind collectivism," [that is Intel's moniker] but that is what he and Engels describe in that document. It is decidedly anti-individualism.

I can accept that. My argument is that removal of his statue only serves the forgetfulness of future generations. We do not need to bury history. In fact, we're more at peril if we do bury history. It must be remembered to enable our prevention of its recurrence.

No. If Biden believes what he says is irrational, but it is otherwise observed as objective by others, it is Biden who is subjective, not objective. But I'm sone with this end of the string.

Are you saying anything more noble than that censorship has a cause? Either you allow freedom of speech, period, as long as no one else or their property is physically harmed, or you don't, your dislike of some speech be damned. Censorship is not the answer. A thick skin and a backbone is. Y'all call it tolerance, but don't know what the word means.

As for Lee, you're willing to take him down because on one subject, abolition, he was on the wrong side? What about the rest of him? Take any hero you want, they have a bad streak. We all do. Do we take each other out for that? Or do we properly love our enemies, if for no other reason than we would prefer they love us. We are expected to forgive, or we do not deserve it ourselves. I don't like Joe Biden, but I'm not calling for his head.

Joe Biden claiming he will beat Joe Biden is rational to somebody?

Joe Biden claiming participation in a Harris administration is rational to somebody?

Joe Biden claiming little children like rubbing his hairy legs is rational to somebody?

You're kidding, right? How many witnesses make irrational objective?

Oh, so China's economy is strictly of a communist design? Don't make me laugh. As it happens, USSR hold's the record of a purely communist system at 75 years. The average duration of a socialist state is 40 years. Meanwhile, USA has been a capitalist enterprise since before it was the USA, albeit a highly taxed one from 1620. That's 400 years, bud. Tell me when China reaches that threshold. Until then, dream on.

Congrats. The only post [other than mine] with an answer to the original question. I don't entirely agree, but, it's still an original answer. Well done.

I'd say their five year track record [since 2015] says they cannot avoid it. trump has their button, and pushes indiscriminately. In that regard, Trump says "Jump;" they don't even ask; they just do it. Like over a cliff.

Well, that's consistent, anyway. The human extinction line starts over there, on the left.

To Biden, it is rational, therefore, not a misspeak. To me, it is irrational, but intentional

Yep, you're both on track in my book, except that I recognize on ly a handful of true Liberals left. They're all Progressives and Socialists, now. I never met a Progressive policy that did not have its antithetic policy fighting each other. Socialism is just a failure everywhere tried. Their respective  rationales makes me laugh.

It is saying something he believes is perfectly rational that absolutely is not, such as "I'm running for US Senate" when a presidential candidate, reference to "the Harris administration" when he's te presidential candidate, "I will beat Joe Biden" when he is not running against Joe Biden, or, in the media's apology for "beating," he is to have said "I will be Joe Biden," which is a worse statement, because if he wasn't Joe Biden when that was said, who was he? Or confusing his wife with his sister. or talking about kids rubbing his hairy legs. Or..., or...., or....

MANSLAUGHTER is the unlawful killing of another person without involvement of malice aforethought, i.e., it was not pre-meditated. It may be coincident with another crime, but is not dependent on either the intent to, or the commission of another crime. 

You decide to cross the street by jaywalking. Then, you steal an apple from a fruit stand. Your theft is not predicated by jaywalking. They are separate, distinct, though sequential crimes. As a prosecutor, you must separate and qualify each as separate crimes not predicated by sequence. Come on, man. Is this so hard?

I repeat: "No, I am not convinced Joe Biden... misspeaks. He utters these gems with such frequency, I believe he has them fully formed in his head, and utters them with the skill of a mimic, like a parrot, which has no comprehension of what is said, but can say it with perfection of lunacy."

Or, for the uninitiated: NO. JOE BIDEN DOES NOT MISSPEAK. IT IS INTENTIONAL

Would you like to show me that statute? What a load of shyte.

Precisely the point we're making to you. I suppose, along with some books, you want to ban guns. So you ban guns. Then we kill with spoons. You ban spoons. So, we kill with thumbs. Going to ban thumbs, now? Do you see why I maintain that the line to human extinction is forming over there on the left? The banning LEFT? Get it?

Until you accept that there are at least 3 thresholds to mount before "conspiracy" is a crime, you cannot claim it is.

Ever hear "When in the course of human events..." That's HISTORY, my friend. Acknowledge it!

Did I say that? No. There's an item [of historical significance, by the way] called "due process." See the 4A and 14A. Kind of necessary components of crime prevention that does not give carte blanche to law enforcement.

another contradiction, of which you are bloated. Ma gavte la nata [please be so kind as to remove the cork].

Well, it seems apparent HistoryBuff has no allegiance to the moniker.

Re-read my post #35. Get it?

Try re-reading my post #29; a direct response to your justification of censorship

Do not bering Jesus into this. Your point that I am automatically committing a crime by publishing a book describing something,  is NOT CORRECT. Get it?

Does my book tell people to go commit a crime? Do I look like I'm wearing a clown suit? DO NOT assume my motive. I'm merely describing a scenario. I'm not telling anyone to go do it. That action is entirely on them. "The devil made me do it" is not a valid defense. 

You cannot parse those three points regarding criminal conspiracy, and indict on their separate commission. In most States, all three must be in play before a crime is declared to have occurred, even before the crime described by the conspiracy has taken place. It's a difficult threshold to achieve before that conspired crime has occurred, and only upon demonstration of all three points can all three points be declared in the indictment. 

No, that is not my point. If I write about committing a crime, pursuant to my comments in post #33, with whom have I conspired? I have written a book. I have no idea who will purchase and read it. I have no idea what they will do with that information. Further, I have no idea what they will do about having that information. And if that information is publicly available, and I have just researched and cited such information, what is my crime? I have conspired with no one. You need to review what the law says, not what you think.

As said, no, that is not criminal conspiracy.

1. For criminal conspiracy to be an indictable offense, two or more people must be involved in the conspiracy. A lone person thinking to commit a crime is not guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. One does not conspire with one's self.

2. All conspirators must have specific intent to commit the crime. If two people conspire to rob a bank, and convince a third to be their driver, but do not tell the driver the intent of their visit to the bank, the driver is not part of the conspiracy and cannot be so charged.

3. In most States, there must be some definitive, purposeful action toward the commission of the crime by at least one of the conspirators, such as buying masks to rob the back in point #2. Until that overt act, there is no indictable criminal conspiracy.

The limit is not on speech. The limit is your acceptance that there are consequences for which one is responsible. Don't you get it? YOU decide whether to be civil, or not. If not, you are obligated to accept consequences. The truth is, little happens to us that is not the result of our own thoughts and actions. Do not ignore personal responsibility in your attempt to censor others.

By having an attitude that there are acceptable reasons to ban books [your example: calling for violence] disregards a very important principle: You thereby attempt to censor ideas. You may not like those ideas, therefore, let's eliminate them? No. You create civil legislation that violence that results in the loss of life or property of another is illegal. Does this legislation work in 100% of cases? No. What if it only deters 10% of people? Do you decide that's not good enough, so ban the provocation of ideas? NO! What do you think democracy is? That everyone agrees with one another? That forcing everyone to think the same way is democratic? 

Bravo. The only banning; the only censorship should be that of individual, personal choice. Why must we accept that only others can make these choices for us? As I argued with HistoryBuff, to abdicate that choice to someone else is a matter of weakness, not strength.

No, I am not convinced Joe Biden merely misspeaks. He utters these gems with such frequency, I believe he has them fully formed in his head, and utters them with the skill of a mimic, like a parrot, which has no comprehension of what is said, but can say it with perfection of lunacy.

I give you, as evidence, the multiple utterance of the word string, "I am running for U.S. Senate." Said once, that's a misspeak. Said multiple times, that's a lunatic who does not know the office for which he runs. Another: multiple reference to "the Harris administration." Though not repeated, he manages to confuse his wife with his sister. Makes for interesting sleeping arrangements, don't you think? I'm sorry, but your candidate is a lunatic.

I entirely agree. But, there are idiots who think wiping put history destroys it. Funny thing. It always comes back to bite.

That's my biz, yeah? You don't have to play along. Bye bye.

You don't know? Your answer is not satisfactory. You seem to be convinced Biden misspeaks. You've answered you own question to your satisfaction. You will dismiss any other answer as I have dismissed yours.

By the way, the answer, of course, is two. Failed anatomy? 

As you said. I've no argument with that.

Nor have you answered my question, raised in my #1. Yours in just #2. So, answer my question first. How many horses does a pony need? Biden seems very concerned about that, and Trump has naught to do with it. The question to Biden by peter Doocy had naught to do with Trump. So, try to leave Trump out of it.

To your #34, the string changed in post #2, before either you or oromagi entered the string. Unfortunately, using a second person to excuse a first only says that others may misspeak, or intentionally lie, but that does not succeed in negating the incident of the first person's tongue-tied condition, does it?

In reply to your #23, you imply that someone cannot intentionally misspeak. Biden does frequently. 

OED: violence: "The deliberate exercise of physical force against a person, property, etc.; physically violent behaviour or treatment; (Law) the unlawful exercise of physical force, intimidation by the exhibition of such force."

The definition includes just violence against property, but, legally, violence is "the unlawful exercise..." 

So, legally, I can conduce all manner of mayhem against my own property, and, as long as that force is not unlawful, I can do it all day long, into the night. Should a story about such an act be banned? Got to know what your words mean. Got to know their history, too, because it was not always so. So, how's that history, buff?

Now that is slow. You like content calling for violence? You're trying so hard to make your point, you argue against it.

Would you like to take another look at these two comments you entered in the same post #2 

Sorry, your iirc is incorrect. Where in my post #1, or #3, do I mention "Trump?" My first mention of "Trump" is in my #9, after drafterman and HistoryBuff have already misguided the string by mention of him. 

in other words, you cannot handle being offended. That is a weak position.

You are all missing the point. I'm calling out Biden words. So y'all throw back Trump words. My topic is Biden. Trump is off topic. Using Trump to excuse Biden is disingenuous. Your BoP, if you have one, is to demonstrate that Biden knows what he is saying, or does not. Before you answer, climb into his head, not Trump's Get it?

They're not? Since when?

Joe Biden says exactly what he means: nothing.

None of you have yet told me how many horses ponies are supposed to have. TDS alive and well. You've all just proved it.

Frequency is a gage? So, you county Trump lies. I'll count Biden tongue-ties. Fair enough? Or is yours a one-way street?