Fail Quotes

[VectorM]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-obsessive-weirdos-who-made-world-better-place/

[tnu]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-obsessive-weirdos-who-made-world-better-place/

Oh god #4

[evensgrey]

it's a good thing I'm around to answer that:

Halliburton is an Oilfield service company. It's based in Houston and Dubai. Been applying to that place lately for work, but no one is willing to talk: a lot of entry level Geologists go there, among other places. (that makes the 15th company to tell me in effect to go fuck myself).

It also happens to hire mercenaries to protect it's assets (normal, if controversial), and is in bed with govco (really bad)....

Do the mercenaries Haliburton hires actually function as more than more expensive, better armed security guards for places with a higher threat index than normal security guards are appropriate for?

[Ibrahim90]

Do the mercenaries Haliburton hires actually function as more than more expensive, better armed security guards for places with a higher threat index than normal security guards are appropriate for?

they are more than glorified security guards: otherwise they'd be of little use in a war-zone like Iraq. Many tend to be ex-soldiers, and they're equipment tends to be military, though considering their duties, they aren't always dressed in camos. their main job is to guard the convoys of trucks, supplies, and staff for the oilfields. they also IIRC tend to get sent to protect the fields themselves, as well as the pipelines. they are indirectly hired though, as the "Baghdad incident" testifies to: the drivers aren't allowed firearms, so initially the national guard would escort them: I'll leave you to figure out how well that worked out.

and I would hardly call them expensive--for Halliburton anyways: they're certainly cheaper...though whether they're as good as Executive Outcomes was, depends on the company. part of the reason is that Halliburton is in bed with Govco, so the US government helps them with the whole protection deal (mercs and army too).


(for those of you who don't know, EO was probably, while it was around, the world's best argument against the idea that standing armies are needed. or the UN....or governments in general. they're the people I mentioned I was going to make a video about, to point out how good the UN really is (not at all).

[Skm1091]

they are more than glorified security guards: otherwise they'd be of little use in a war-zone like Iraq. Many tend to be ex-soldiers, and they're equipment tends to be military, though considering their duties, they aren't always dressed in camos. their main job is to guard the convoys of trucks, supplies, and staff for the oilfields. they also IIRC tend to get sent to protect the fields themselves, as well as the pipelines. they are indirectly hired though, as the "Baghdad incident" testifies to: the drivers aren't allowed firearms, so initially the national guard would escort them: I'll leave you to figure out how well that worked out.

and I would hardly call them expensive--for Halliburton anyways: they're certainly cheaper...though whether they're as good as Executive Outcomes was, depends on the company. part of the reason is that Halliburton is in bed with Govco, so the US government helps them with the whole protection deal (mercs and army too).


(for those of you who don't know, EO was probably, while it was around, the world's best argument against the idea that standing armies are needed. or the UN....or governments in general. they're the people I mentioned I was going to make a video about, to point out how good the UN really is (not at all).

Executive Outcomes was the last group of actual mercenaries.

They stopped the RUF in Sierra Leone, dead in their tracks, with only a hundred men.

[Ibrahim90]

Executive Outcomes was the last group of actual mercenaries.

They stopped the RUF in Sierra Leone, dead in their tracks, with only a hundred men.

that's what I was referring to. 17,000 UN soldiers could never manage to do what those guys did: the RUF was back to wreaking havoc within weeks of EO leaving, the UN totally helpless.

[R.E.H.W.R.]

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]PB7hTuaFvpc[/yt]

To quote the great scholar known as the Iron Sheik, "FUCK DA CHRIS ROCK! NO GOOD PIECE OF SHIT!"

Somehow I seriously doubt he would be calling Bush, "The boss" and "dad."

[Ibrahim90]

talk about Stefan Molyneux's analogy of government as a surrogate father being taken literally.

[tnu]

[yt]gBrHkxqNT7s[/yt]


This video isn't necessarily the fail but this response is. When somebody jokinlgy said "Let's declare war on Keynesia!" somebody came back with this gem.

You mean the economic philosophy that ended the Great Depression with the new deal? The one that helped capitalism win by inserting a large dose of socialism? Amerikkka was near revolution and IMHO should've gone for revolution but instead the US got a few social programs to help guide it out of depression. Would've been better off rejecting capitalism completely as it kills people.

Oh THIS is good! I posted this comment on one of Sam Seder's videos (fucking smug arrogent asshole)) In response to his claim that "taxation is a choice since you can  choose to not pay and go  to jail instead"

Oh yes and you have a CHOICE to not pay a mugger or protection racket and get shot, stabbed, or beaten.

and I get THIS response from itsazy.

Exactly... These Libertards are so stupid. Do they not realise that if they give their money to the mugger, that they are now responsible for the mugger's actions in the future?

It's the same with the people who give protection money to the mafia... They should choose to get whacked instead, because otherwise they're responsible for everything the mafia does.

Of course I'm not sure if i'm reading it rihgt btu to me it sounds like he's saying the guy gettign shaken down for protection money or mugged should choose to be assaulted/murdered.

[AnCap Dave]

A friend of mine. He's a libertarian, but he threw this out there that I thought was pretty big fail:

Hello. Your friendly neighborhood gun-rights advocate here.

Can we please STOP with the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" bullshit and just admit that guns DO in fact kill? Because they do. Guns kill a LOT of people. When your argument against gun control is that "HURRRRR DURRRRR if guns kill people then spoons make people fat", then you've lost the debate and you're probably mentally incapable of handing a firearm in the first place.

Guns. Kill. People. And that's precisely WHY I want access to them. Guns kill intruders. Guns kill rapists. Guns kill muggers. And push comes to shove, guns kill an overreaching government.

Protect your rights. Protect your property. But playing semantic games with the opposition just makes you look like a babbling hick.

Thank you

He's completely missing the point of why people say that. People use that argument because of the double standard placed with guns. For example, if police use guns to take down a violent criminal, people don't praise the gun for taking the person out, instead they praise the officers for their actions. On the flip side, if some lunatic uses a gun to shoot people, they then call for legislation to ban guns and claim that it is the gun's fault for killing people. The fact of the matter is, guns are not capable of thought or moving on their own, and that's why it is stupid to praise or blame guns when something good happens and why only the intention of use should be looked at. By their very own logic, spoons can be blamed for making people fat.

[tnu]

and itsazy strikes again. When I calle dhim out on his logic he had this to say.

YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAFIA'S WHACKING IF YOU GIVE INTO THEIR THREATS. STUPID LIBERTARIAN.

Fairly easy to counter. I just pointed out howh e's responsible for drone strieks on innocent people. The failed wars on terror and drugs with no end in sight, et al.

[tnu]

Temerit strikes again.

Egalitarian ethical theories have plenty strong arguments to back them up, far strong that that of libertarian ones.

For reference.

http://168.144.87.33/~alestan/view.php?post=74080

I'm not usre where libertarianism factors in he just likes attacking it as being far inferior to his pet social democracy.


"sigh" posted a simple question on fringelements latest video asking how his idea of forced segregation fit in to the non aggression axiom. I got this comment from a user.

The thing is that ALL property norms are coercive.

The question is what you want to use violence to defend.

I want to defend a genetic pool which is capable of upholding liberal Western standards.

[Goaticus]

Not a quote, but after watching Shane's reupload of How to Fix Healthcare Without Spending a Dime youtube recommended I watch some video with some delusional person claiming that some humming sound was heard all over the world and it was coming from HAARP and foretold the coming of the Apocalypse.

[tnu]

 

fringeelements 1 day ago

Well I'm going to come out and say something that you won't like at all. And that is that I want a country for my race as an end in itself. I don't want it just as an end for libertarianism, though it does help that and that is a great bonus.

But I would rather have a white-only statist society than a multiracial libertarian society. I have changed in this regard.

and, why i'm at it. This whole channel.

http://www.youtube.com/user/samseder