Here's the thing. He is 100% spot-on with his remarks. Doc Sarvis doesn't like it because he favors global elitism.

Apparently, calling out Western countries for their retreat from free speech and criminalizing disfavored speech all while bringing receipts is fascist.

" 13 - hilarious revisionism and imperialism you have embraced so deeply.

#14 | POSTED BY YAV AT 2025-02-14 05:20 PM | REPLY"

It's an accurate summation of the clip I listened to.

Yav,

Did you hate his AI speech as well?

" I'm noting Vance was a DEI admission."

What are you basing that on?

I just watched the full 19 minute speech. How anyone can construe it as fascist or "berating" is beyond me.

"If he plays his card right, he can get a lucrative corporate job after this.

#33 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2025-02-14 09:32 PM"

More likely, he will be the next POTUS.

"I thought it was horrid. Dangerous. Stupid"

Really? Why? What about it caused you to draw that conclusion?

"You love the idea of autonomous AI piloted weapons?"

I don't know what speech you watched but I didn't see anything remotely resembling that idea.

JD Vance was not promoting Cyberdyne or anything close to that.

Then, your issue is with Google, which is bordering on being subject to the Sherman anti-trust law.

"Seems like Vance is taking it to a whole new level with this speech. Could have talked about China threat, Russia. ... but to poke the bear in their own backyard. That takes some nerve.

#32 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT"

It reminded me of Nikki Haley as UN ambassador. She would raise her hand and call out the BS with brutal honesty. That's precisely what Vance just did. And he did it under the auspice of free speech - you are free to disagree with me. That's what this is all about.

Et Al,

I understand what you are saying. At the same time I remember the Obama apology tour at the beginning of his first term. It was terrible.

This is something I feel needed to be said publicly.

We can agree to disagree about it and that's fine. I see the status quo as a non-starter. Perhaps this type of thing won't end up moving the needle but coddling this crap certainly has gone in a negative direction.

"#46 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2025-02-14 11:36 PM | FLAG: "

What in the hell are you even talking about? That was completely nonsensical.

"Have an adult read it to you.

#52 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2025-02-14 11:42 PM"

Screw you. You are conjuring up a ridiculous dystopian prediction based on a short speech and it's nonsensical. Feel free to clarify. Or, just sit there and condescend as is usually your wont as you usually fashion yourself as the smartest person in the room at all times.

"What criticize foreign peers because they think different than you? "

No. Criticize foreign peers because they are chatting upon traditional western values like free speech and free expression.

"Sorry, don't remember it."

No need to apologize. The 'apology tour' occurred early during Obama's first term. That was a long time ago.

"That Europe doesn't live up to the values and principles that the GOP used to claim to have to a sufficient level to please the opportunist POS Vance?

You're deadset on making sure nobody here ever takes you seriously again, eh?

#51 | POSTED BY JPW AT 2025-02-14 11:41 PM | FLAG: "

Did you even watch the speech?

"We have much to apologize for. Our arrogance is legendary sadly.

#54 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR AT 2025-02-14 11:46 PM"

In a vacuum - yes.

Compared to other countries and regimes throughout history? Hell no.

Historically I can't think of another country that has done more to advance quality of life in the world than the US.

Et Al,

Did you watch the speech?

BTW - I love your use of [sic] in response to my typo.

"Try the British. If it weren't for the Brits our country wouldn't even exist.

#62 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR"

The reason our country exists is because we fought a war to free ourselves from their imperialism.

"Did you watch the speech?
-----
No....

#65 | POSTED BY ET_AL"

You really should. It's just under 20 minutes. I get that you have to sift through ridiculously lengthy legal briefs and whatnot. This is different. 19 minutes isn't a serious time commitment if you want to seriously opine. I'd be happy to provide a link.

Watching it may not change your opinion but at least you can argue your opinion from a primary source - the actual person laying out the argument.

"I'll go back to what I said earlier, no, you don't get what I'm saying about foreign diplomacy. "

I understand that - Deference. Be diplomatic in a manner that is deferential. I tend to agree with that most of the time. However, when our allies are crapping on western values and are persecuting and prosecuting their own citizens for wrong-think, I feel it's appropriate and necessary to call it out.

This has become circular - either watch the 19 minute speech or don't. If it's the latter, the discussion ends. If it's the former, perhaps we have more to discuss, or, maybe not.

"So "western" values are yours? Did I miss something?

Yes, you did.

"Btw, we already agreed to disagree so why up in arms?"

I'm not "up in arms". I am simply encouraging you to take 19 minutes of your time to watch the primary source you are eagerly opining about.

FFS Yav.

Had Kamala made the same speech (she's incapable of articulating like that) you would have loved it. Saying that the US will be a driving force on AI and laying out how beneficial it is and can be is a good thing. Pride in OUR country is a good thing.

The pols you idolize show embarrassment for the US. Obama inherently despises the US. And you loved it. All of it.

You call Vance a "--------" because (R).

Yav,

You pulled things out of your pie hole. He gave specific examples. Care to address what he actually said?

Laura Mohr,

A person who loves this country doesn't brag about fundamentally transforming it.

Yav,

you are becoming unhinged. He's not 'cavorting with Nazi's'. You bring up 3 Dem criminals. Are you suggesting by comparison that Vance is also a criminal? That is how you are coming across.

You haven't actually addressed what he actually said in the berating speech. He gave specific examples. Care to weight in on those? How about arresting a man who spent 3 minutes in silent prayer 160 feet away from an abortion clinic who ends up arrested, found guilty of a 'crime' and is forced to pay thousands of pounds in fees. That cool with you?

" He ended with analogizing Marquis de Lafayette's sword to AI weapons"

He was equivocating the importance of both in their respective eras. But, I agree with you. It's not a very good analogy.

" He hilariously criticized using AI's use curtail the spread of disinformation by our allies after crying for it to be unfettered, and then turned around and said we can't let authoritarians misuse it. All the while saying that Europe (Germany) had no right to their own laws and autonomy when it comes to dealing with its own history. He ridiculously called out two examples of what exactly I am not sure. It was silly. It wasn't logical. It was an emotional ploy."

Disinformation/misinformation is a vague catch- all to describe wrongthink that justifies censorship.

" Then there was his remark about how we, the United States, are going to educate our children, through our schools, to be the best and brightest in the world on this technology. You know, while we do away with DOE and focus on indoctrination and non-value stupid culture war nonsense"

the DO Ed was created by Congress. It can't be eliminated without new legislation and that should happen. It can be reorganized and restructured and absent legislation it absolutely should. The culture war nonsense came from the left - transing confused kids, males competing in girl's sports and having unfetter3d access to girl's private spaces, DEI where white kids are taught to be ashamed of themselves due to their skin color (Asians too) and black and brown kids are taught to resent white kinds as their oppressors, policing language, etc.

" Arrogant, demanding compliance, contradictory, hypocritical, and belittling anyone that won't agree with the trump policy."

It wasn't a demand it was an appeal, an attempt to persuade. That's how it came across to me.

" | POSTED BY YAV AT 2025-02-15 10:38 PM | FLAG: "

That is some Grade A projection. Nothing is more Orwellian than policing language and having the state partner with the private sector to engage in censorship. Cancel culture. Engaging in heckler's veto at campuses everywhere.

All of that crap contributed to Trump's electoral victory. And now this crap is being dismantled.

1A Laura Mohr. Learn it. Know it. Live it.

#101

They were working through the private sector to remove anything that contradicted a preferred narrative, including the likes of the theory that COVID was the result of a lab leak, which is looking increasingly plausible. Or, that the laptop story was Russia disinformation and had to be shut down to influence the election. Countless other examples abound but those are the more obvious.

I just watched a pundit describe Vance's speech "berating" Europe as an intervention. That is a near perfect summation of it IMO.

Banning and purging? Curating public school libraries for age appropriate content isn't banning anything. If a movie theater prevents 2 unaccompanied 13 year olds from going into a R rated movie is that banning?

I wish the left had a concept of what the 1st actually means. Preventing the AP from going into the Oval Office (I strongly disagree with that decision) does not deprive the AP from their ability to publish what they want.

#107. The founders weren't "left". If anything they would most closely align with today's Libertarian Party.

Today's left has become extremely authoritarian and engages in censorship as much as they can get away with it.

#113. It doesn't.