#81
mt.real
Post rating: ~
i hope this thread gets printed out & framed later. don't let me down, pages 3 through 100
#82
Post rating: ~
I don't know about women being responsible for most of the consumer market, but cycloneboy is right about (unimproved) land not being capital according to Marx. Capital is commodities, things that are reproducible and thus capable of accumulating– unlike the quantity of land which is pretty much fixed by nature and can't accumulate.
#83
Post rating: +

xipe posted:

get your wife to post here



"please, i don't know who you people are but call for help!"

#84
Nippon
Post rating: -

hey posted:

Goethestein posted:

discipline posted:

not now honey, no I can't take care of the baby. I'm trolling them on all three fronts here: homelessness, single moms, and trans women

im taking care of the baby irl while my wife is out. maybe u should stop policing gender roles.

even my shitty ass parents would tell you that dumping you're daughter in the crib/in front of the TV and checking up on her every hour or so while you post on a gay forum trying to convince people what a shitty person you are is only "talking care of a baby" in the sense that she'll live to see another day



shitty ass-parents. xkcd

#85
Post rating: ~

swirlsofhistory posted:

I don't know about women being responsible for most of the consumer market, but cycloneboy is right about (unimproved) land not being capital according to Marx. Capital is commodities, things that are reproducible and thus capable of accumulating– unlike the quantity of land which is pretty much fixed by nature and can't accumulate.



Well I dunno but how is land not a “means of production”? You grow corn or backyard nail salons on finance capitalism on it.

#86
Post rating: +
For one thing, every commodity is an object belonging to the category of productive forces, but not every object in the productive forces is also a commodity. F.ex land and raw resources are productive forces but not commodities. In human groups that have developed beyond an existence of savagery and barbarism, both commodity and non-commodity productive forces are property, private or otherwise, with the exception of productive forces that are objects that can't be held at length from a human being, i.e.: skills, knowledge, unrecognized intellectual property.

Land is an object that is: a) a productive force, b) an object that can held at length, c) state-enforced property in civilization – but is not a commodity because of its fixed quantity. A given tract of land is only as productive as the non-fixed productive forces are at transforming it as a 'one-way' input of production. Land can be combined with non-land inputs to produce a non-land output, but only with great effort can exclusively non-land inputs of production combine to produce a land output (artificial islands).

Edited by swirlsofhistory ()

#87
Nippon
Post rating: ~
forums poster thirdplace is mad at me on postplace
#88
Post rating: ~
I was trying to pick holes in it but the best I could come up with is “what about a seafront property getting eroded by waves!!” so cool, that’s a good explanation, thx.
#89
Nippon
Post rating: +

swirlsofhistory posted:

For one thing, every commodity is an object belonging to the category of productive forces, but not every object in the productive forces is also a commodity. F.ex land and raw resources are productive forces but not commodities. In human groups that have developed beyond an existence of savagery and barbarism, both commodity and non-commodity productive forces are property, private or otherwise, with the exception of productive forces that are objects that can't be held at length from a human being, i.e.: skills, knowledge, unrecognized intellectual property.

Land is an object that is: a) a productive force, b) an object that can held at length, c) state-enforced property in civilization – but is not a commodity because of its fixed quantity. A given tract of land is only as productive as the non-fixed productive forces are at transforming it as a 'one-way' input of production. Land can be combined with non-land inputs to produce a non-land output, but only with great effort can exclusively non-land inputs of production combine to produce a land output (artificial islands).



this is some magic the gathering shit

#90
Post rating: ~

Goethestein posted:

swirlsofhistory posted:
For one thing, every commodity is an object belonging to the category of productive forces, but not every object in the productive forces is also a commodity. F.ex land and raw resources are productive forces but not commodities. In human groups that have developed beyond an existence of savagery and barbarism, both commodity and non-commodity productive forces are property, private or otherwise, with the exception of productive forces that are objects that can't be held at length from a human being, i.e.: skills, knowledge, unrecognized intellectual property.

Land is an object that is: a) a productive force, b) an object that can held at length, c) state-enforced property in civilization – but is not a commodity because of its fixed quantity. A given tract of land is only as productive as the non-fixed productive forces are at transforming it as a 'one-way' input of production. Land can be combined with non-land inputs to produce a non-land output, but only with great effort can exclusively non-land inputs of production combine to produce a land output (artificial islands).


this is some magic the gathering shit



As opposed to “natural rights”? lol

#91
Post rating: ~

Goethestein posted:

forums poster thirdplace is mad at me on postplace

that was a long time ago when your harping on the trans thing was even more obnoxious than it has been lately but yes you are still the worst, jerry; the worst!

#92
Post rating: +
everyone should keep in mind that goatstein thinks nick cage's performance in the rock was superior to his masterful work in FACE/OFF. oh yeah playing second nerd fiddle to sean connery is better than PERFECTLY INHABITING not one but TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT CHARACTERS!!!! it's like, yeah it's one thing to act as a terrorist but then to act as a cop acting as a terrorist my FUCKING god it's so multifaceted it makes my TEETH HURT
#93
Online
Post rating: ~
yeah well have you seen national trasure?
#94
Online
Post rating: ~
http://voices.yahoo.com/is-there-really-treasure-map-back-the-393702.html
#95
Online
Post rating: ~

ilmdge posted:

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-there-really-treasure-map-back-the-393702.html

ugh what a disappointment. why even publish the article if that's what it's going to say. at least let us dream

#96
Online
Post rating: ~
it's like trat show mythbusters. what a bunch of assholes
#97
Online
Post rating: +

ilmdge posted:

ilmdge posted:

http://voices.yahoo.com/is-there-really-treasure-map-back-the-393702.html

ugh what a disappointment. why even publish the article if that's what it's going to say. at least let us dream

keep hope alive

xXGeirkXx5/7/2009
Well I'm watching a program on the history channel that says that there is codes on it, and there are code breakers working on it to break the code and to find where the treasure is and who the treasure belongs to. Some code cracker before numbered the words of the article, starting with "When" and they was able to crack part of it. But I do believe that there is enoughs codes that a "map" could be created to lead you to a treasure that as they state on the history channel being worth 36 million dollars. Its just so hard to crack the code that no one has been able to. Yet...

NOONE4/27/2009
i work for the CIA and i tell you there is a map on the back ive worked with the document all i will tell you is that i will get in truble

Troy Chadbourne12/2/2007
I think there's more there than what the government is telling us....... and also think that the movies are made for us to think....nawwww, that really doesn't exsist, but I think there lying.

#98
Online
Post rating: +
whoa... got a little carried away. hope you guys are as interested in national treasure as i am, if not sorry lol
#99
Post rating: ~
Both national treasure movies are good or at least satisfying. You pretty much know how things are going to turn out but the hooks keep you interested, you see some neat stuff and places, and bonus: there's hardly any violence, no cussing or sex – so almost anyone can watch them. I will likely go see the third when it comes out, preferably at a time when there are fewer kids and mommies in the theater so I can soak up the National Treasure experience in quiet, dark peace.
#100
[account deactivated]
#101
Online
Post rating: ~
THe first is a lot better, the sequel didn't quite capture the magic. The NT franchise is a lot better than the da vinci code movies which are basically the same thing but slower and take themselves more seriously. I really hope they make a third one because I want to see where they go next.
#102
[account deactivated]
#103
Nippon
Post rating: ~

thirdplace posted:

Goethestein posted:

forums poster thirdplace is mad at me on postplace

that was a long time ago when your harping on the trans thing was even more obnoxious than it has been lately but yes you are still the worst, jerry; the worst!



thats mean to say.

#104
[account deactivated]
#105
Post rating: ~

tpaine posted:

apologize for being mean to goatestine.

like i'm gonna appologize to the guy who insists--INSISTS--that Ziggy and Sam Becket had a homoerotic relationship. never mind that ziggy is a hybrid computer that actually has no gender, OR that becket spent the show's run TEMPORALLY SEPARATED from ziggy. all we ever saw of him was goddamn HOLOGRAPHIC PROJECTION that very very explicitly had NO TACTILE PRESSENCE whatsoever!!! facts aren't enough to keep goat's perverse and overcharged sexual fantasies in check. NOT. EVEN. CLOSE.