Always with the qoutas, never the opportunity. If anything we want to reduce the amount of politicians we have as they are mostly useless. Even police might be better served by allowing towns to hire private security or even PMCs if you're a border town.
If you're entitlement to power is you make babies, go in the kitchen and learn to make a sandwich as I doubt you know how to with that level of entitlement.
Think about how much of your life is going to suck because two mediocre bitches fucked the right two beta male chumps a couple decades ago. No one voted for these cunts. They didn’t build their own wealth. Melinda and Mackenzie have no legitimate claim to their massive influence over our lives. Yet here we are, enduring their every political whim because they were fortunate enough to catch dick early from Bill and Jeff.
Imagine being one of the richest motherfuckers on the planet and not being able to handle your woman business. There are homeless dudes out there who can figure this shit out. Now we all gotta pay the price for Bill and Jeff’s failures at home.
I want to say Elon is the only one doing it right because he only uses women as baby factories, and he was not as rich when he divorced his first wife. But even he has had some trouble on that front. When women are involved there can be no victory conditions. Only stalemates.
Raise a bunch of children as future rulers and when they come of age force them to compete for our trust - while also imposing term limits and legal mechanisms to remove them from power when necessary.
Plato wrote that the common people, realizing that they needed philosophers to rule, would force the unwilling philosophers to become rulers. Of course, this was all part of an opus that argued that philosophers like him should be rulers, so the 'unwilling' part certainly did not apply to him.
I don't think there is a solution. I will note that hereditary monarchy, for all its flaws, at least does not guarantee that those who lust after power will get it, like modern-day so called democracies do. But not everyone who does not want power can be trusted with it. Nicholas II did not want to be tsar, but regarded it as his duty. We all know how that ended.
I am wildly surprised you of all people used the term 'stochastic terrorism' which is just academic talk for "i can't find any direcy causality but my feelings tell me it's true."
Stochastic terrorism is very real. As is frequently the case, the leftists who complain about it are projecting; they constantly signal for their political allies to commit violence. It just so happens that those leftist terrorists are working for the DOJ and the FBI.
Right, but that's not stochastic terrorism. Stochastic Terrorism is the fanciful idea that when Trump says "I love and work for all Americans" it's really a dog whistle to his 'followers' to be violent towards some group that is considered to be "unamerican" -- as one example.
The logic is that as violence against target groups goes up, it must be ____ person's rhetoric -- which didn't call for violence -- but in other ways inspired people to be violent. Asian Hate Crimes/Violence was such a thing in the news because it was evidence of this "stochastic terrorism" because of Trump's language ("China Virus") -- which is stupid because it was mostly Asians getting assaulted by blacks in the inner cities that continue to decay into cultural dust.
When Maxine Waters spouts off about telling people they should go confront people - that's not stochastic terrorism, that's just plain old incitement to violence. And there's dozens of examples of this on the left.
If you want to assert feminist rhetoric is leading to increased male suicides you can't just hypothesize that and assert it as logically likely -- you have to show some sort of causation.
Always with the qoutas, never the opportunity. If anything we want to reduce the amount of politicians we have as they are mostly useless. Even police might be better served by allowing towns to hire private security or even PMCs if you're a border town.
If you're entitlement to power is you make babies, go in the kitchen and learn to make a sandwich as I doubt you know how to with that level of entitlement.
I'm sorry at current tech levels we might only be able to achieve MGS V at the moment
I call eye patch!
Why are we still here? Just to suffer?
teaching women how to read was a mistake
Think about how much of your life is going to suck because two mediocre bitches fucked the right two beta male chumps a couple decades ago. No one voted for these cunts. They didn’t build their own wealth. Melinda and Mackenzie have no legitimate claim to their massive influence over our lives. Yet here we are, enduring their every political whim because they were fortunate enough to catch dick early from Bill and Jeff.
Imagine being one of the richest motherfuckers on the planet and not being able to handle your woman business. There are homeless dudes out there who can figure this shit out. Now we all gotta pay the price for Bill and Jeff’s failures at home.
I want to say Elon is the only one doing it right because he only uses women as baby factories, and he was not as rich when he divorced his first wife. But even he has had some trouble on that front. When women are involved there can be no victory conditions. Only stalemates.
... then stop women voting. Statistically, they're mostly the ones voting men in.
Only men can be trusted with power.
Only some men can be trusted with power, and most men of that nature don't walk the earth anymore.
No one can be trusted with power, because of man's fallen nature.
No person who wants power can be trusted with it. So how the hell do you find the right person and elevate them?
Raise a bunch of children as future rulers and when they come of age force them to compete for our trust - while also imposing term limits and legal mechanisms to remove them from power when necessary.
Plato wrote that the common people, realizing that they needed philosophers to rule, would force the unwilling philosophers to become rulers. Of course, this was all part of an opus that argued that philosophers like him should be rulers, so the 'unwilling' part certainly did not apply to him.
I don't think there is a solution. I will note that hereditary monarchy, for all its flaws, at least does not guarantee that those who lust after power will get it, like modern-day so called democracies do. But not everyone who does not want power can be trusted with it. Nicholas II did not want to be tsar, but regarded it as his duty. We all know how that ended.
She needs to be taken to task by the progressives for her being a billionaire.
As big a psychopath as Billy. Shocker.
She's my #1 choice for the woman most behind that awful rhetoric we see them put out.
I am wildly surprised you of all people used the term 'stochastic terrorism' which is just academic talk for "i can't find any direcy causality but my feelings tell me it's true."
Other than that, agree.
Stochastic terrorism is very real. As is frequently the case, the leftists who complain about it are projecting; they constantly signal for their political allies to commit violence. It just so happens that those leftist terrorists are working for the DOJ and the FBI.
Right, but that's not stochastic terrorism. Stochastic Terrorism is the fanciful idea that when Trump says "I love and work for all Americans" it's really a dog whistle to his 'followers' to be violent towards some group that is considered to be "unamerican" -- as one example.
The logic is that as violence against target groups goes up, it must be ____ person's rhetoric -- which didn't call for violence -- but in other ways inspired people to be violent. Asian Hate Crimes/Violence was such a thing in the news because it was evidence of this "stochastic terrorism" because of Trump's language ("China Virus") -- which is stupid because it was mostly Asians getting assaulted by blacks in the inner cities that continue to decay into cultural dust.
When Maxine Waters spouts off about telling people they should go confront people - that's not stochastic terrorism, that's just plain old incitement to violence. And there's dozens of examples of this on the left.
He's an SJW, of course he's going to use thier terms
There is nothing wrong with using the enemy's weapons against him.
No it's not.
If you want to assert feminist rhetoric is leading to increased male suicides you can't just hypothesize that and assert it as logically likely -- you have to show some sort of causation.