The outcome is unfalsifiable. Where is the outcome where he's wrong, or his conclusion isn't the same in each case?
- Expand the military? Fight wars for joos
- Reduce the military? Weaken country for subversion by joos
- Abolish the military? Destroy the country for joos
- Create a military state? Tyranny for joos
Where is the outcome where joos is not the conclusion? There isn't one.
These faggots exist to demoralize, radicalize, and weaponize for the feds at the expense of the populist movement.
No, I'm right about this one. That ad buy didn't go for propping up Vance. It went to tearing down Tim Ryan. I didn't even know who Vance was, let alone that he was running. I have the radio on 24/7 for background noise. They ran campaign ads on why Tim Ryan was bad. They didn't say shit about Vance, who he was, what he had done or anything else. It was "Tim Ryan bad. No vote Tim Ryan." Then, not a fucking word about JD Vance. That's not how you win an election. They wanted him to lose. According to Rich Barris, Vance called him personally because he wanted to know what Barris' polling had shown, because Republican establishmetarians were telling him to drop out a week or so before the vote because he was 4 points down in the polls on their internal polling. He won by 6.
I disagree again. I think it says something terrible of the moral framework of a theist to say that he is only good out of fear. What I respect about the Protestants is that they feel inspired to be good, not too afraid to be bad. The latter as a moral frame work inevitably creates a hyper-fragile moral system where the population will riot wildly out of control at the first sign of disharmony among the enforcement mechanisms.
Societies need enforcement mechanisms, but typically, every society's enforcement mechanism is typically women acting as social enforcers. You still don't need god to sit in the back of your head. The "little voice inside your head" telling you to do the right thing, or what would other people think about what you're doing, or what your mother would say, are all part of the development of a moral consciousness created by socialization, not by an in-built God created mechanism.
So you're position's unfalsifiable. Being anti-DEI is advocating for total white death, being pro-DEI is advocating for total white death. Sounds like you're making up whatever argument you feel like making to be mad and demoralized.
Yes. They JD Vance because he spoke the truth.
Men: For the sake of every generation that comes after us, we have a responsibility to marry women to prevent this from happening to anyone ever again.
Get wives. Make babies, and never let this happen again.
I don't really think they are all that bad. Frankly, he has a lot better team, and a stronger MAGA team than he had in his first term.
I will say that we should all be clear that he is more than willing to fire people who don't pull their weight.
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with it. Low IQ people need structure not necessarily religion. Tradition, community, and family should be plenty for their needs.
Most atheists are just lashing out in rejection of that and tend to become religious adherents of things that are less strictly theistic,
I wouldn't say most, but there's clearly far too many that haven't undergone what we call "Deconversion". This is the process of actually taking the mantel of responsibility onto yourself. At that point, you just don't need God. It's an irrelevancy. You don't fight it at all. You don't need god for morality, tradition, community, beauty, or really anything.
An atheist who is raging or waring against God, is still a theist, because otherwise he's a madman tilting at windmills.
This doesn't seem to be the case according to the US Patent law. They're pretty clear that you can't patent a concept, only the creation from the idea. Something tangible, like the code, or perhaps a data structure graph.
This is why I think there's more going on here. I feel like this is more like a bad judiciary that's claiming "welp, you made a thing, so all variants of this thing are also yours regardless of who makes them, or why, or in what way."
No, intellectual property isn't property, or you wouldn't need to define it as such. It's a legal fiction
So is property. The reason we use legal fictions to define property boundaries is so that we don't have to go to guns, and we can make sure each person maintains their property without this descending into Feudalism as a result of conquest. The point of a Liberal Society is to create a government that can amicably resolve property disputes so that violation of those property rights is not the norm.
If the government can define what is property, they can just as easily define it away.
The government isn't defining it, you're asserting it. The issue is that your assertion has to meld with the law. That's just how reality has to work. If some kind of government must exist, you must exist within the law.
Software isn't that hard to engineer.
This is just not true. Even if it were true that coming up with software is universally easy, that doesn't mean you don't have the right to own it. I'm sorry, but you're resorting back to the Labor Theory of Value: things that are difficult to do have value, but things that are not difficult to do have less value.
Making intellectual property property is the communist position.
It really isn't, and you've resorted to a communist argument.
I'm not really objecting to the patent system as it is built with law and courts, in fact that's my point. But I don't accept that removing patents altogether is a sane idea.
No manufacturers have adopted the tech; most are likely just waiting out the patent duration before they start using it.
Same issue, where the licensing? If the problem is duration, then the period they should be waiting should be longer, not shorter. And is this even true? Are company's really just prepared to make nothing for decades to just wait, or is there a different incentive structure driving them, that would suggest it's not worth getting a license, or developing a different patent?
When was the last time you saw a truly novel patent idea that wasn't just some slightly different form factor for some connector that allows some company like Apple to charge $100 for a power cable that should cost $2?
It literally happens all the time, and to be clear, incremental development is still critical to innovation. I accept that we have a large number of patent trolls, but I don't see the ide of removing patents at all. And to your point, you're talking about IP's. Now you're talking eliminating the concept of inventing things for a profit in it's entirety. At that point, there's no reason for innovation at all.
True, but I see no reason why human IQ development can not be continuously grown. I agree that that level of anti-theism was not possible in the Bronze Age, but I see no reason low IQ is the kind of limiting factor that would make it impossible for a secular society to take responsiblity for itself.
He's wrong, but I still don't see why he's a bad pick for DOD yet. I don't see any evidence he won't be clearing out the US military's woke bullshit and re-building it into an actually effective fighting force.
Zionism isn't even Western Civilization, and neither is Israel. Also, AIPAC members still need to register as foreign agents.
The point is humiliation and degradation in the hopes that dissidents kill themselves because they hate you.