Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

I swear, it's bad enough statists constantly throwing the "you're just republicans HUR DER" at us.  Really, if W.A.R. want to help the cause of freedom so badly, he'd switch to the other side.

[Ibrahim90]

I swear, it's bad enough statists constantly throwing the "you're just republicans HUR DER" at us.  Really, if W.A.R. want to help the cause of freedom so badly, he'd switch to the other side.

instead they go on their own WARpath...

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]iz259zRJDLE[/yt]

I found this on the Mises Institute Forum's Freedom Images thread.  The guy said to show it to liberals anytime they accuse you of being racist.  Upon reading the description and watching the first five minutes of it...well...yeah.
Let me put it this way:  the original link to the video posted on the thread led to an error saying the video was removed due to hate speech.  Not off to a stellar start.

[Travis Retriever]

And while I'm on the subject of Mises Institute Forum fails:

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Yes, that was posted as a "pro-freedom" image. *facepalms*

[Travis Retriever]

Last fail from the M.I.F. (for now at least):

[spoiler][/spoiler]

To be fair, I'm not sure about this one, as the OP provided no other citation or context.

EDIT 1:  I found the original work it came from:  http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block175.html
Would anyone say that the above is a fail? either?

EDIT 2: And I already found a red flag.  A contradiction in the above text.  From number 3:  "Two wrongs cannot make a right, and neither can one right and one wrong. So, I deduce, it was entirely proper for Danneskjold to relieve the evil government depicted in Atlas of its stolen property, even if he did not give a penny of it to Reardon. Taking money from a thief is an unadulterated good deed. Returning it to victims is virtuous, too, but it is supererogatory: it is not needed to convert the first part of this double-stage act into righteousness; the first part is good in and of itself!"
So to steal is wrong, but to steal something back is moral?  Oh dearie...I don't even want to go into the issues with that.
Even moreso is the fact that his entire point here is just baldly asserted with the occasional emotional appeal; and not actually proven.

[Travis Retriever]

If anyone wonders why I seem to be in a tissy in my above post it's because I, myself, am in a similar situation for various reasons. >_<
I'm not proud of it.  Quite the contrary, but...gods.

[evensgrey]

And while I'm on the subject of Mises Institute Forum fails:

[spoiler][/spoiler]

Yes, that was posted as a "pro-freedom" image. *facepalms*

I'm not sure if it's actually a fail, just hard to interpret.  I note that even Lincoln, Nixon, Kennedy and Bush are looking on with apparent disapproval, while the approvers appear to include Clinton and both Roosevelts (at least, they're the ones clapping, even if they appear to be looking at the space beside Obama).

[Travis Retriever]

I'm not sure if it's actually a fail, just hard to interpret.  I note that even Lincoln, Nixon, Kennedy and Bush are looking on with apparent disapproval, while the approvers appear to include Clinton and both Roosevelts (at least, they're the ones clapping, even if they appear to be looking at the space beside Obama).

The fail is from (at first glance for me anyways), making it look like the only president to "stamp out" the constitution is Obama.  Anyone who thinks that hasn't been paying attention for the past 200+ years.
And if what you say is accurate, it doesn't help.  Hell, Nixon and Bush weren't exactly constitutional upholders, and I doubt Kennedy was either.

It also doesn't help that the piece was made by the same guy who did #2 on this list:  http://www.cracked.com/article_19947_the-11-most-unintentionally-hilarious-religious-paintings_p2.html

[evensgrey]

The fail is from (at first glance for me anyways), making it look like the only president to "stamp out" the constitution is Obama.  Anyone who thinks that hasn't been paying attention for the past 200+ years.
And if what you say is accurate, it doesn't help.  Hell, Nixon and Bush weren't exactly constitutional upholders, and I doubt Kennedy was either.

It also doesn't help that the piece was made by the same guy who did #2 on this list:  http://www.cracked.com/article_19947_the-11-most-unintentionally-hilarious-religious-paintings_p2.html

Looks like most of the figures (approving or not) aren't even noticing the Constitution being ground underfoot (although Thomas Jefferson is), but most are gesturing towards the despairing man sitting on the bench which Obama and his approvers are studiously ignoring.

Certainly no President has been much concerned with the Constitution since (at the very latest) Andrew Jackson, but that may be a secondary point.  The utter disregard for the problems of real people seems to be a greater point in the painting.

[MrBogosity]

The fail is from (at first glance for me anyways), making it look like the only president to "stamp out" the constitution is Obama.  Anyone who thinks that hasn't been paying attention for the past 200+ years.
And if what you say is accurate, it doesn't help.  Hell, Nixon and Bush weren't exactly constitutional upholders, and I doubt Kennedy was either.

And Lincoln certainly wasn't!

[Travis Retriever]

And Lincoln certainly wasn't!

Shit.  I forgot to add him.  Oh well. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Travis Retriever]

If anyone wonders why I seem to be in a tissy in my above post it's because I, myself, am in a similar situation for various reasons. >_<
I'm not proud of it.  Quite the contrary, but...gods.

So what is your take on this?  Are libertarians who accept state aid, or state jobs hypocrites, or bad, etc?  Why/why not?

[MrBogosity]

So what is your take on this?  Are libertarians who accept state aid, or state jobs hypocrites, or bad, etc?  Why/why not?

If you're forced into the system, and therefore have to put up with the disadvantages, why would it be bad to benefit from what advantages remain? I mean, you drive on the roads, don't you? People who say that are just making excuses.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Deny someone alternatives then call them hypocrites for not choosing those alternatives kinda makes YOU the hypocrite if anything.

As for the gun thing, it was mentioned by John Stossel.  Sadly it's a rough guess because there's no way to know for sure since no one reports crimes that didn't happen.

[evensgrey]

Deny someone alternatives then call them hypocrites for not choosing those alternatives kinda makes YOU the hypocrite if anything.

As for the gun thing, it was mentioned by John Stossel.  Sadly it's a rough guess because there's no way to know for sure since no one reports crimes that didn't happen.

The standard approach is usually to try to match areas for as many of the socioeconomic factors that normally seem to act as crime predictors as possible and see what differences you get.

Here's one that's always fun to bring up:  Canada is significantly more dangerous to live in than the US.  Overall, every category of violent crime except murder (which has special circumstances in the US) is higher in Canada, and the effect is even more pronounced when you compare socioeconomically similar areas.

The special circumstances of murder in the US is that a large portion of murders in the US are related to the illegal drug trade.  Why should it be different than in Canada, which also has an illegal drug trade?  Well, Canada doesn't fight drugs nearly as hard as the US, so there's less perceived risk, and less money involved.  Less money means less interest from criminals, which means less competition, and fewer conflicts.  Why do US drug traffickers kill each other?  It comes down, mostly, to drugs, money, and turf.  The three basic sources of conflict between all merchants, everywhere, and at all times:  Product, money, and territory.  Since the drug trade itself is illegal, those involved have no recourse to the courts or other legal venues to settle their differences, and the scale of the money involved and the rapidity with which it is made tends to promote a desire for a RAPID removal of business opposition, so they kill each other over any substantial conflict.  If it wasn't illegal, there would not only be less money (and so much less motivation for the violence) but there would be legal remedies available for those conflicts that do occur, so illegal ones would be much less desirable.

Here's the really interesting part:  When you take out the parts of US inner cities that are the most damaged by the war on (some) drugs (which have no real corresponding areas in Canada), the murder rate in the US drops below that of Canada.