ClaytonB
Member

Or fix a pothole.

Glad to have you back on board! :toady:

Just remember, kids:

Wow, the online dictionaries sure do update fast nowadays:

Nature teaches us that all members of a species are intrinsically interested in the reproduction of that species. For fertile males and females, this means finding a breeding opportunity as soon as possible. Other members of the species play one kind of support-role or another. While intra-species violence can occur -- especially between fertile males competing for access to fertile females -- it is typically much less extreme than inter-species violence because reducing your own numbers is obviously insane. Even Nature understands that. When you see fertile, biological women who are not interested in reproduction, that is a sign of a deep sickness in society. It may be a very well-hidden sickness, but still very real. And this bizarre "ceremony", if it can be called that, is particularly instructive in this regard, because the reality is that the fertile biological women who are suffering from blue-hair disease have not actually lost their drive to reproduce. Rather, the question is what is it they desire to reproduce? They no longer desire to reproduce humans: "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward-when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." (Gen. 6:1,2,4) Witchcraft. The real thing, not the cute/sexy Hollywood/Halloween version. They are, indeed, reproducing. They're just not reproducing our species. Marrying a fallen angel, or marrying a brine-shrimp ... is it really so different?

Well, it turns out that there is at least one positive, beneficial application of AI:

TOM'S HARDWARE: Researchers jailbreak AI robots to run over pedestrians, place bombs for maximum damage, and covertly spy

Hey, at least, she's a female, though. :tears:

Same.

Judge Andrew Napolitano. :cool:

*Secret Service has entered the chat*

I'm guessing the AI was trying to do Dr. Strange but forgot the collar?

- It's ironic that so many libertarians are automatically opposed to anything that Trump is for, apparently for no other reason than that Trump is for it. The Chase-Oliver-Libertines bring up the "Old Right" but only when it suits them; the Old Right also believed in Sunday Laws, vagrancy laws, traditional marriage, etc. Bringing back the culture of the Old Right in 2024 would create a very uncomfortable situation for rainbow "libertarians". - There are many things about the Constitution that are not pure minarchy. However, compared to the modern multi-trillion dollar monstrosity we call "the Federal government", a government that actually obeyed the Constitution would essentially be a libertarian Utopia, by comparison, both economically and culturally (small government simply doesn't have the resources to police what you do in your bedroom if it is not a crime of aggression, no matter what laws are on the books.) - In particular, the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to levy tariffs at the borders. From economics, we know that tariffs impose a burden on domestic consumers vis-a-vis foreign consumers. However, we also know from economics that every form of government resourcement necessarily reduces economic efficiency, so it's always a matter of "pick your poison". - The most deadly of all poisons is the unapportioned (thus, unconstitutional) personal income tax because it adds to the economic burden the unconstitutional violation of personal privacy (violates 4th amendment protection against unreasonable search/seizure). Everybody is required to "show their accounts" to the IRS on pain of truly medieval punishment should they fail to comply. In other words, the IRS makes the entire Federal government into a protection racket: we must buy protection from the IRS by voluntarily violating our own 4th-amendment protections or face the consequences. Border tariffs of equal magnitude to the income tax (combined with real abolition of the income tax at SCOTUS-level by virtue of its unconsitutionality, protecting against future regressions by Congress) would provide equal resourcement to the Federal government while not requiring violation of the 4th-amendment protections of US citizens. All told, the economic consequences of $X trillion of government revenue drawn from source A or source B is roughly equivalent and will be arbitraged by the market one way or the other. Thus, while tariffs have negative economic consequences, so do income taxes, and $X trillion dollars of tariffs are equally negative to $X trillion of income tax but without the added devastation of constitutional protection of personal privacy in the 4A which income taxes entail. Tariffs have negative economic consequences; for the same total revenue, income taxes have all the same negative economic consequences and they violate our constitutional rights. Don't just fall for the propaganda, people! Think!