Fail Quotes

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

he's beyond helping...

I blocked and removed his comments because this guy is just trolling.
I get that after hundreds of Comments on the video.

[Ibrahim90]

well, I've had to leave the backroom to another forum lately. Not because I did anything wrong--I did not, but because I had this happen:

me: "I don't care what other people think, or why they want weapons. It doesn't guide my thoughts here. Besides, they can live with the consequences on their wallets" (this was in reference to people potentially wasting money on guns they don't need--some guy made a dumb utilitarian argument).

you know what he replies with?

Wallets? You're in the life insurance buissness?

I just flipped my lid on this: I mean, who the fuck is he to insinuate that I only say what I say so that I can get my money from the misery of other people? is he this much of a piss-ant no-good coward, that he has to make such a slur on my character, when my arguments don't suit him?

OK, OK: it's possible you ask, that he's trying to invoke statistics regarding accident rates (which are near zero in this country anyways), related to that business. But he made no attempt to qualify it, and clearly meant it to be an insult.

and it's not just that: I get this shit, from this same asshole, when I explained to him that the crime problem we have in the US is not because we have guns, but from the government policy--citing in the process the US border, and esp. the town of Juarez (as well as inner cities):

Not that much kills in the border states. I do wonder why Georgia is such a cop killer state though

Oh, let's ignore the border region, and just look at the whole states!

and the second part? he completely ignores the fact that the statistics he is referring to (which I had to link--me, not the guy who brought it up--me!), do not segregate gun violence from other causes of cop deaths (notably Auto accidents--yes, the source included auto deaths), nor do they do so along county or urban levels--the very levels I was referring to and citing. I even told him that for all I know (facetiously), there are hardly any shootings of police in Georgia, and that they're all just awful drivers--there's no way for him to merely blame the deaths in Georgia of police on guns alone.


And when I point out that perturbed people (like the one at bath school disaster), don't need guns to get what they want, or if they want it, they'll get it anyways regardless of the law (I referenced Anders Breivik), you know what he does? he ignores it, and focuses on another example I gave: Timothy McVeigh, saying he's somehow a different class of mass murderer--and then repeats the same God-damn point he made earlier (that they must have guns somehow for it to happen), which I clearly explained made no sense, and doesn't work that way, in the very post he replied to!

and the part that takes the cake? I clearly explained to him that the violence, and modus operendi, of said violence in the US and latin America as a whole, is a function of the war on drugs, the fact that police are also armed (creating a further demand for guns), and the need to drive out competition in a black market, all lead to an increase in crime, regardless of gun regulation (and yes, I did point out to him the statistics in Latin America: I'd plastered him with a few links on the topic. And yes, I did--carefully--explain how this could happen in say, Britain), you know what he does? bear in mind, I did explicitly tell him guns are freely available in Latin America and in the US, regardless of official restriction, so it is no surprise that that is the tool used for murder. you know what he says?

he accuses me of saying that I believe the violence is because of an attitude people in the US have to guns (implying I'm a hypocrite, and also the complete opposite of what I said). he clearly didn't even read what I wrote!

you people are right: these people are beyond reason: they're also scumbags.

[MrBogosity]

"You are kidding right. Uncontroled capitalism? Do we want ''no rules'' markets? Didn't history teach anything ? 1929 was a ''free market , 2007 free market. Are we becoming economic morons ?" —Lawrence Anthony, posted to Laissez Faire Capitalism on Facebook

And apparently, the answer is "yes."

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

Erin Brockovich movie.
Need I say more?

[MrBogosity]

Erin Brockovich movie.
Need I say more?

And, indeed, the real life Erin Brockovich.

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

And, indeed, the real life Erin Brockovich.

I was a little angry when I did even a little research.

[MrBogosity]

I was a little angry when I did even a little research.

If anyone deserves to be called a terrorist it's her.

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

If anyone deserves to be called a terrorist it's her.

If only it was easier to convince my sister that the movie and the real person lied.

[Ibrahim90]

If only it was easier to convince my sister that the movie and the real person lied.

bigtime too.

it was one of the most fucked up things I ever discovered. Along side seeing a Mike Moore movie....

[Skm1091]

Erin Brockovich movie.
Need I say more?

Who's Erin Brockovich?

[Ibrahim90]

Who's Erin Brockovich?

this scumbag

[Lord T Hawkeye]

And, indeed, the real life Erin Brockovich.

Was the gas company as least a genuine bad guy or was that BS too?

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

Was the gas company as least a genuine bad guy or was that BS too?

I've heard that she might have lied about the so-called poisoning causing the cancer and other stuff.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-333m-payout-an-oscar-and-now-a-final-twist-was-erin-brockovich-wrong-2159569.html

[MrBogosity]

I've heard that she might have lied about the so-called poisoning causing the cancer and other stuff.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-333m-payout-an-oscar-and-now-a-final-twist-was-erin-brockovich-wrong-2159569.html

She was only able to show an increased rate of cancer by cherry-picking: she included houses outside the range where someone had cancer and excluded a lot of them inside the range that didn't.

[AnCap Dave]

6 Reasons Libertarians Should Reject the Non-Aggression Principle

It's mostly the "ends justifies the means" fallacy with a bunch of made up scenario's pulled directly out of the author's ass.

It makes me cringe that The Skeptical Libertarian is promoting this garbage.