Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

Someone I went to high school with apparently found "God" recently. She has a ton of shit I can post here, but I decided to stick with the latest gem.

It is so funny how people give so much power to coincidence. Anything that is unusual, or perfect in timing, is coincidence. "Oh that, it was just coincidence." We boil it down. We are not a thankful generation. It was never us at all and we know it. But what if coincidence was God. What if all the cool little moments in life were little hellos. God's got a good sense of humor, believe it or not. What if we gave Him the thanks for "coincidental" awesome moments.. where we didn't think we would make it, yet we did. Then He would be on our side. And the coincidence turns to favor. And the waves of His love wash grace to our shores. You will be surprised how blessed you are when you are thankful for little things, and don't pass them off as nothing.

[MrBogosity]

But what if coincidence was God. What if all the cool little moments in life were little hellos.

What would that make the terrible moments? God's little fuck-yous? Once again, we see how one-sided this is. Christians complain about Monty Python's song, "All things dull and ugly / All creatures short and squat / All things rude and nasty / The Lord God made the lot." But do they not believe that to be true? There's definitely some compartmentalization going on there.

What if we gave Him the thanks for "coincidental" awesome moments.

Then we should also curse him for the coincidental terrible ones.

Also, given the rate that coincidences happen, it seems that God only does it as much as we would expect from blind, random chance. So yet again, God operates in a way that is indistinguishable from him not existing at all.

[MrBogosity]

Also, given the rate that coincidences happen, it seems that God only does it as much as we would expect from blind, random chance. So yet again, God operates in a way that is indistinguishable from him not existing at all.

Yes, I'm talking to myself, but I just thought of another ramification of this: this would mean that for every beneficial coincidence God creates he'd have to stop a different one from happening!

[AnCap Dave]

The caption that "Americans Against the Tea Party" on Facebook used for this picture is MAJOR fail:

"Proof that not all rednecks are racist"

Someone needs to curb stomp this "Opposition equals racism" bullshit and bury it forever.

[Travis Retriever]

@D:  Christ, this is even worse than the "YER NOT EN AMERIKUN!" bullshit the opposition to Bush would throw out...

[AnCap Dave]

@D:  Christ, this is even worse than the "YER NOT EN AMERIKUN!" bullshit the opposition to Bush would throw out...

Meh, in the end I'd say it's the same. It's falsely demonizing your opposition for the purpose of bettering your own position.

Either way, it's equally dishonest.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh this is good.



That was a response to this picture:

[Travis Retriever]

Meh, in the end I'd say it's the same. It's falsely demonizing your opposition for the purpose of bettering your own position.

Either way, it's equally dishonest.

Kinda hard to ignore the difference in magnitude of despicable-ness, imho.

[Travis Retriever]

Oh this is good.



That was a response to this picture:

As an anarchist, both the image and the Facebook post sound like a reason to not HAVE a president in the first place

[Ibrahim90]

As an anarchist, both the image and the Facebook post sound like a reason to not HAVE a president in the first place

frankly, I wonder if the guy who made the comment has anything that can be construed as a brain with which memories may be stored, since you know, Obama ran on an antiwar ticket....granted, it was merely "withdrawing" from Iraq and Afghanistan, but you get the idea.

frankly though, I haven't given up at that point: no--I gave up all hope in our government when I saw this:

[yt]zNZczIgVXjg[/yt]

[FSBlueApocalypse]

From the Facebook group for my local offshot off Occupy

The ideal Democratic Party Platform for 2012:
Scrap Obamacare for Universal Healthcare.

A National Minimum Wage of 10.50 a hour.

Raising Capital Gains taxes from 15% to 28%(2013) and 35%(2014)

Cut Defense Spending by 26%

Expand enforcement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on States passing laws that grossly infringe on civil liberties.

Reinstate Smoot - Hawley

Rigorous enforcement of Sherman Anti-Trust on the banking, media, energy, automakers and national retailers.

Require all American citizens to pay into Social Security.

Legislate national sales taxes on all Wall Street transactions.
Nationalize all "illegal Aliens" within our borders and get them on the tax rolls.

Create a new jobs program to modernize infrastructure, sewage, energy, transportation, schools, and hospitals.

Outlaw derivatives trading and other methods of commoditizing debt.

Broad write offs of existing student loan debt and setting price controls on collegiate tuitions across the country.

Suspend and renegotiate all "free trade" agreements with countries that do not have parity of business and labor standards with that of the United States.

Accellerate deployment from Afghanistan cutting the transition from ten to five years.

Nationalize the Federal Reserve System.

Offer incentives to expand and create more employee owned enterprises in green technology, service, and manufacturing industries.

A 2 cent national consumption tax to go towards national debt reduction.

[Travis Retriever]

From the Facebook group for my local offshot off Occupy

Good lord...that was painful.

[Goaticus]

If we outlaw methods for commoditizing debt that's going to make it hard for the Government to sell its debt.

[AnCap Dave]

Source

"Taxation is theft." "War is murder." "Citizenship is slavery." If you're a frequenter of libertarian circles like myself, then you've likely encountered some of these oversimplified statements before. They can be overheard at countless conferences and socials, usually overconfidently declared by some schmuck wearing a bow tie, as if his words were the divine dictates of the God he doesn't believe in. While these statements may fly by unfettered in the libertarian echo chamber where everyone agrees with our bow-tied buffoon, I believe such claims of universal truth are detrimental to use in conversations aiming to convert non-libertarians.

These oversimplified statements are most often inspired by the deontological strand of libertarianism led by late, great thinkers like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard. Deontological libertarians believe that political ethics should be boiled down to protecting our natural rights of life, liberty, and property — the "non-aggression principle," as Rothbard called it. Returning to my initial examples, deontological libertarians would say that governments initiates force in laying taxes, waging war, and setting citizenship requirements, and therefore all three are categorically immoral.

While the non-aggression principle is certainly admirable in its philosophical concision, what it has in simplicity it lacks in substance. What, after all, is the role of government in a society that categorically rejects the initiation of force? The only logical answer would be that the government has no role since its existence would necessarily require the initiation of force through taxation. While this conclusion may please anarcho-capitalists, the reality is that most people are not so quick to "smash the state," rather having a deep-seated belief in a role for government.

Indeed, most people would find the conclusions of the non-aggression calculus to be outright absurd. To them, taxation is not categorically theft, but rather can be appropriate to provide for some necessary functions of government like the criminal justice system. To them, war is not categorically murder, but rather can be appropriate to defend against existential enemies. Certainly the government's monopoly of force can be scary at times, such non-libertarians may think, but abandoning this monopoly for the state of nature is even scarier. Any attempt to force anarchism down such their throats will only cause them to vomit it right out. Thus, it would be futile to try to convert non-libertarians with the non-aggression principle, since it will only give them an anarchist answer that they are fundamentally uncomfortable with.

Granted, many deontological libertarians have advocated a role for government while maintaining a natural rights framework, like Ayn Rand and John Locke. To these thinkers, a limited government is a "necessary evil," to borrow Thomas Paine's famous phrase. It's necessary in that it provides services such as police, courts, and the military that protect against the initiation of force; however, it's evil in that these services paradoxically requires the initiation of force to exist.  Unfortunately, this contradictory acceptance of the initiation of force in the name of ending the initiation of force raises an uncomfortable question that leaves any libertarian evangelizer susceptible to argumentative attack. Namely, if the government's initiation of force is acceptable for "the greater good" in providing limited services like police, courts, and the military, why couldn't it have a larger role for the benefit of "the greater good" in providing even more services?

It's at this point that our libertarian recruiter must either concede to anarcho-capitalism or abandon deontology to rather provide a consequentialist critique of government's inefficiency. In the former case, the prospective convert would likely walk away laughing at the "nutcase" recruiter advocating the abolition of government. In the latter cause, the recruiter would probably hold the prospective convert's attention, going through consequentialists critiques like those of Friedrich Hayek or Milton Friedman,  but he or she would have wasted their time in advocating some questionable non-aggression principle.

So, I suggest to you libertarian evangelizers out there to avoid the nebulous non-aggression principle for the graspable facts of government inefficiency. Economics and public choice theory are much more powerful persuaders than some imperceptible axiom that contains a fundamental contradiction. Oh, and leave the bow ties in your grandfather's closet.

Apparently the non-aggression principle is too simple and lacks substance to some people.

If you believe in the non-aggression principle and you're for small government, you are contradicting yourself, and if you believe in the non-aggression principle and you are an anarcho-capitalist, you are insane. Wonderful.

[MrBogosity]

And he dissed bow ties! Bow ties are cool!