FreedomWorks
Well-Known Member
No I don't. Barack O' Claus is coming to town. HE will magically make everything perfect.
[video=youtube;wiIkAyFDj5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wiIkAyFDj5Q[/video]
An important history lesson!!!!!!!
- Thread starter SSHZ
- Start date
[video=youtube;wiIkAyFDj5Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wiIkAyFDj5Q[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
whaaa whaaa whaaa, you Know the difference between a FARM and a GARDEN?
size dumbass.
a garden is a hobby project, while a farm is a sizeable undertaking.
montezuma hills (the only new "large wind farm" since the early 90's) consists of 100 windmills. One Hundred Windmills.
thats a wind GARDEN when compared to altamont or tahachapi
and yet it's "the big one"
total wind power capacity in calif: 5600 megawatts
wind power proposals awaiting approval in Kern County alone: 4600 megawatts
WHOOPS!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
actually it's you who are regularly dismissed as a frootloop
you are a autismal as fuck, and tushy traumatized because i dont let it slide when you try to Chompsky the living shit out of well understood words instead of acting like a respectable Chompsky acolyte and simply making up NEW words, so you can hang whatever meaning you like on them.
serfdom: still a modified form of slavery, not at all related to debt bondage or modern employment contracts
chattel: still ONLY means moveable property. not a subtle distinction between property and slavery
feudalism: still a system of government charcterized by interlocking layers of vassalage and oaths, not capitalism.
Anarchy: still the lack of all order and society, not a political theory, philosophy or form of governance
should i continue or are you having flashbacks?
you may carry on posting marxist propaganda images and quotations from the chairman.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;zJr985FT65Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJr985FT65Y[/video]
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;YBs63cvUkIQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBs63cvUkIQ[/video]
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;sgV5Oi-ExPs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgV5Oi-ExPs[/video]
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and another irrelevant shitpost from cheezedick.
ZOMG theres racists? in the south??? and they love flags from failed attempts at secession???
my mind is BLOWN.
Edit: OHH MY!! it's just part of a WAVE of shitposts crashing over this thread, all coming from YOU.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
ohh msnbc, you so shitty.
this dingbat just rambles on, one long run-on sentence which he thinks will convince republicans to stop resisting, and just "Lean Forward" into the left's Rapey Embrace.
"and the party will be better for it"
whose party?
well the "progressive party" of course.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Oh look, kkkynes called me a Marxist and insulted Noam Chomsky. Such a thick playbook.
FYI serfs were not chattel, by definition.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
neither is an outhouse but both are property, and both get shit on.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Actually serfs were not chattel, by definition.
Why must you try so hard to redefine words? Could it be that your arguments are fallacious?
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
chattel status has NOTHING to do with slavery or serfdom.
you are deliberately trying to re-define serfdom to conform to your narrative, yet britannica again demonstrates that you are a fool:
serfdom, condition in medieval Europe in which a tenant farmer was bound to a hereditary plot of land and to the will of his landlord. The vast majority of serfs in medieval Europe obtained their subsistence by cultivating a plot of land that was owned by a lord. This was the essential feature differentiating serfs from slaves, who were bought and sold without reference to a plot of land. The serf provided his own food and clothing from his own productive efforts. A substantial proportion of the grain the serf grew on his holding had to be given to his lord. The lord could also compel the serf to cultivate that portion of the lords land that was not held by other tenants (called demesne land). The serf also had to use his
lords grain mills and no others. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/535485/serfdom
even wikipedia says you are full of shit:
Serfdom is the status of peasants under feudalism, specifically relating to manorialism. It was a condition of bondage or modified slavery which developed primarily during the High Middle Ages in Europe and lasted in some countries until the mid-19th century.
Serfs who occupied a plot of land were required to work for the Lord of the Manor who owned that land, and in return were entitled to protection, justice and the right to exploit certain fields within the manor to maintain their own subsistence. Serfs were often required not only to work on the lord's fields, but also his mines, forests and roads. The manor formed the basic unit of feudal society and the Lord of the Manor and his serfs were bound legally, economically, and socially. Serfs formed the lowest social class of feudal society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom
even the communists at Vlib say you are full of shit, before they go off the rails with crazy marxist goofball theories:
The question of the difference between ancient slavery and medieval serfdom may seem to be a rather minor point to be discussing, but it is one that has absorbed the attention of generations of Marxist-influenced historians. Karl Marx held that society evolved in accordance with economic law. His colleague, Friederich Engels, proposed that that evolution proceeds through four major stages, each characterized by its principle mode of production. The first stage is ancient slavery, followed by medieval serfdom, modern wage exploitation, and future communism. Lenin elaborated the scheme a bit, dividing the era of communism itself into four stages: the revolt of the working class and their seizure of the means of production, the dictatorship of the working class and their abolition of class, the withering away of a state that no longer has a repressive function to perform, and final communism. http://www.vlib.us/medieval/lectures/serfdom.html
a modifiied form of slavery is still slavery, thus you are simply WRONG.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Note the long winded attempt by kkkynes to redefine a word.
Serfs, by definition, we're not chattel.
Serfs, by definition, we're not chattel.
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and chattel are not always slaves.
serfs were also not trees.
serfs were also not woodsheds
serfs were also not water fountains.
none of those are chattel either.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
and for once you almost seem to get it.
chattel status has NOTHING to do with slavery or it's modified form, serfdom.
Protip: some roman public baths had slaves who\ were bound to serve the bath and it's customers, they were also NOT chattel, yet definitely were SLAVES.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
rapey embraces are purely the domain of the right.
they even sponsor magical vaginas that are capable of detecting the legitimacy of the rape, and little angels that fly in from heaven not to stop the rape, but to make sure the rapist's seed implants.
that, my friends, is a gift from heaven. rape babies.
this line of thought brought to you by republicans. REPUBLICANS: YOU'LL LOVE OUR RAPE! (TM)
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Since you're so slow I'll repeat the short and simple fact yet again for you. Serfs, by definition, were not chattel.
Read it several times. It is a FACT. I never said they were not slaves. I never said all slaves were chattel. Read it one last time before you reply because it is a fact and it doesn't imply any of the ridiculous crap you keep coming up with.
What I am implying is that wage slaves such as yourself are very similar to serfs. Serfs were not chattel therefore serfdom was voluntary.
abandonconflict
Well-Known Member
Kynes.
Serfs were not chattel.
BY DEFINITION!
Serfs were not chattel.
BY DEFINITION!
Dr Kynes
Well-Known Member
repeat that shit as often as you like.
serfs were also not teakettles which ARE chattel.
chattel are defined as moveable property, which serfs were not, because they were IMMOBILE PROPERTY. their status as PROPERTY made them slaves, while their IMMOBILITY did not free them from bondage you dolt.
serfdom was hereditary bondage, and a modified form of slavery. that is all. your inability to grasp this simple concept is proof that you are a MORON!