Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?

[trokanmariel]

Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?

I once tried to do that with a 230 terawatt laser and it didn't work, you'll have to use a stronger one?

What about the public speech part?

[Sculptor]

The 17%, that is referenced: should Bernie Sanders publicly say that they contain within them our discussion.

Is English a second langauge?

I'll rephrase:
should Bernie Sanders say, in public, that the 17% of children living in poverty in the United States contain within them the contents of our discussion, on this thread?

You are asking if Bernie should mention out thread?
Are you serious?

[Atla]

Can the words "poor" and "homeless" be eradicated from the dictionary, and from all public speech?

I once tried to do that with a 230 terawatt laser and it didn't work, you'll have to use a stronger one?

What about the public speech part?

You hit it with a laser, what about it?

[trokanmariel]

Is English a second langauge?

I'll rephrase:
should Bernie Sanders say, in public, that the 17% of children living in poverty in the United States contain within them the contents of our discussion, on this thread?

You are asking if Bernie should mention out thread?
Are you serious?

The thread is politics, and Bernie represents politics; it can be seen as politics for politics, so yes, Bernie should mention our thread.

In addition, there is the component of giving words to people over giving statistics to people. The topic in question is about taking away words, thus, it can be about giving words.

I'll clarify:
The thread should be mentioned, because it represents the dichotomy, of giving statistics (the inhumane) versus taking away words (the humane), an ironic dichotomy that "could perhaps" deserve a public mention, on the basis of the proof of the opposite.

The opposite = taking away statistics versus giving words




Confirmation of two, as a versus proof: confirmation of two, i.e. politicians and members of public espousing statistics, and then versus proof, which is the giving statistics confrontation, supported by the confirmation of two, thus, Bernie should mention the thread

[Sculptor]

I'll rephrase:
should Bernie Sanders say, in public, that the 17% of children living in poverty in the United States contain within them the contents of our discussion, on this thread?

You are asking if Bernie should mention out thread?
Are you serious?

The thread is politics, and Bernie represents politics; it can be seen as politics for politics, so yes, Bernie should mention our thread.

In addition, there is the component of giving words to people over giving statistics to people. The topic in question is about taking away words, thus, it can be about giving words.

I'll clarify:
The thread should be mentioned, because it represents the dichotomy, of giving statistics (the inhumane) versus taking away words (the humane), an ironic dichotomy that "could perhaps" deserve a public mention, on the basis of the proof of the opposite.

The opposite = taking away statistics versus giving words




Confirmation of two, as a versus proof: confirmation of two, i.e. politicians and members of public espousing statistics, and then versus proof, which is the giving statistics confrontation, supported by the confirmation of two, thus, Bernie should mention the thread

I think it will be a cold day in hell before Bernie has the time to notice this petty little Forum.
But maybe on a different planet or a different reality?

[trokanmariel]

You are asking if Bernie should mention out thread?
Are you serious?

The thread is politics, and Bernie represents politics; it can be seen as politics for politics, so yes, Bernie should mention our thread.

In addition, there is the component of giving words to people over giving statistics to people. The topic in question is about taking away words, thus, it can be about giving words.

I'll clarify:
The thread should be mentioned, because it represents the dichotomy, of giving statistics (the inhumane) versus taking away words (the humane), an ironic dichotomy that "could perhaps" deserve a public mention, on the basis of the proof of the opposite.

The opposite = taking away statistics versus giving words




Confirmation of two, as a versus proof: confirmation of two, i.e. politicians and members of public espousing statistics, and then versus proof, which is the giving statistics confrontation, supported by the confirmation of two, thus, Bernie should mention the thread

I think it will be a cold day in hell before Bernie has the time to notice this petty little Forum.
But maybe on a different planet or a different reality?

From the perspective, that Sanders has perhaps up to about 2,000 days to live (including over that amount), he likely would be able to visit the forum, read the thread, and then air it.

[Sculptor]

The thread is politics, and Bernie represents politics; it can be seen as politics for politics, so yes, Bernie should mention our thread.

In addition, there is the component of giving words to people over giving statistics to people. The topic in question is about taking away words, thus, it can be about giving words.

I'll clarify:
The thread should be mentioned, because it represents the dichotomy, of giving statistics (the inhumane) versus taking away words (the humane), an ironic dichotomy that "could perhaps" deserve a public mention, on the basis of the proof of the opposite.

The opposite = taking away statistics versus giving words




Confirmation of two, as a versus proof: confirmation of two, i.e. politicians and members of public espousing statistics, and then versus proof, which is the giving statistics confrontation, supported by the confirmation of two, thus, Bernie should mention the thread

I think it will be a cold day in hell before Bernie has the time to notice this petty little Forum.
But maybe on a different planet or a different reality?

From the perspective, that Sanders has perhaps up to about 2,000 days to live (including over that amount), he likely would be able to visit the forum, read the thread, and then air it.

Why don't you drop him a line?

[trokanmariel]

I think it will be a cold day in hell before Bernie has the time to notice this petty little Forum.
But maybe on a different planet or a different reality?

From the perspective, that Sanders has perhaps up to about 2,000 days to live (including over that amount), he likely would be able to visit the forum, read the thread, and then air it.

Why don't you drop him a line?

I've tried tweeting him in the past, but it doesn't work. I think the reason, it doesn't work, in reference to tweeting Bernie about a metaphysical politics, is that any politician can't fundamentally acknowledge content of reality which means the singularity.