Fail Quotes

[Travis Retriever]

Excuse me, I think I may be suffering from an aneurysm out of sheer stupidity.

Excuse me while I join you.

[BlameThe1st]

If you think that's bad, just read the screed posted with it:

Why hello there, another stamp from yours truly.

I decided to make a stamp against Libertarianism, since I see it as a flawed political ideology.

But you said you follow Communist political ideologies?

Perhaps you should read the Communist Manifesto some time, when it comes to Communism, there is many different forms of Communism, be it traditional Marxism, Leninism, or Stalinism (the most popular forms), I would more of a Marxist-Leninist Commie (even though my views are left wing), but leave it to the US government in the times after World War 1 and 2 to have the red scare and misinterpret it as an oppressive form of government (when in reality, many of these "communists" where batshit insane, even North Korea isn't communist)

Then why did I make this against Libertarianism?

Well perhaps you should hear me out, Libertarianism claims to be in between the wings, in other words, being Liberal and Conservative at the same time. It's chaos, plus their most defining traits, They want absolutely no taxes of any form, little or no government at all, are loved by anarchists, and their most well known trait, legalize drugs. While I am not really for drug legalization, nor do I really care about drugs, they have their biggest contradiction, tax the crap out of drugs, like with Alcohol and tobacco, only tax the crap out of hard drugs instead. Yet earlier, they said they don't want any taxes at all.

Another wild claim of the Libertarian party is that their for personal freedoms, yet so far, the most popular "Libertarians" Ron and Rand Paul, are nothing more than Republicans concerned with getting votes with younger people. It has been proven that Ron Paul is nothing more than your typical Republican, a young-earth Creationist, who is a racist, gun loving, bible thumping, is against separation of church and state, anti-public education, and is incredibly homophobic. Same can be applied to his son Rand. Sure they may have a few Libertarian ideologies, but in the end, they're just concerned with getting votes (and you wonder why they didn't go through with republican nomination for president last year).

Libertarianism is nothing more than an incredibly contradicting, corrupt, vile, and inefficient political ideology that our country just doesn't need, sure I'm for more parties, however Libertarians would just make things worse than better.

If you are a Libertarian, and you where offended by this, just remember, this is  MY OPINION .

I have the right to speak my mind out and tell people why I don't agree with the Libertarian system, but I don't want comments spamming me "OMG UR Wrong, Rand Paul 2016!!!!!!!11!!111", any comments along those lines will just be marked as spam.

Pfft. I just "love" how he tries to cover his flank by pulling the "but it's only my opinion" card! Seems to be the tactic of most intellectual cowards.

[AnCap Dave]

No one has said it yet, but in the comments of Shane's latest video, Mandragara's comments are just woefully stupid.

[yt]YedEHECrzDM[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

No one has said it yet, but in the comments of Shane's latest video, Mandragara's comments are just woefully stupid.

[yt]YedEHECrzDM[/yt]

In my defense, I was going to post something like this, but just never got around to it.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/3-dystopian-ways-were-fighting-obesity-epidemic/
Given these are govco "solutions," they will not work.

[tnu]

This gu y k eeps yaming about Market fialures and how this supposedly jsutifies government action. I honeslty odn't know enougha bout the subject and am not usr e how to respond.

I already addressed this point. Read the last portion of my previous reply, because you're sounding like a broken record player. And you're one to talk about baseless assumptions, let alone relevant ones.

When the hell did I claim my alternative was flawless? What do you mean by government free-riders? Bureaucrats? Welfare recipients? I do believe that any unemployment insurance scheme needs to adhere closely to the adage that people respond to incentives. But what are you insinuating, that because there is a potential for abuse (particularly for poorly designed policies) the government should cease to exist? Your free market alternative doesn't have a savoury track record. Governments can sometimes intervene to address market failures. End of story. Tax revenue can be used efficiently. Also, taxes themselves can function to alter behaviour for the better - excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, environmental degradation, gasoline, and carbon emissions come to mind. Your ideas are so crass.

[Altimadark]

And here's some quick'n'easy fail from some MiserableOldFart. No, I'm not name-calling, that's actually his handle.

[yt]RWsx1X8PV_A[/yt]

Gog I wish this video had vote up/down buttons for the comments.

MiserableOldFart in red, me in blue.

Friedman and his economic theories were FRAUDS. Grow the fuck up. Unregulated capitalism IS worse than communism, but I don't advocate EITHER.

"Unregulated capitalism IS worse than communism" -- False, but not for the reason you might think. You incorrectly assume that either regulation would not exist in a free market, or it is somehow the exclusive province of govt. The former ignores the fact that regulation is an economic good; the latter supports monopolization. Would you like to clarify your assumption, or would you prefer to re-evaluate your position altogether?

Neither. Unregulated capitalism has never, ever existed for long in there real world. Communistic societies (with a small "c" when not at the beginning of a sentence) have endured successfully for thousands of years. Regulation is indeed the province of government. There is no such thing as "self regulation," and the "invisible hand" isn't regulation either. The fantasy that unregulated corp.s would be [shunned] by consumers assumes consumers would know, which, without regs, they would not.

In summation: Friedman was a fraud, and so are the policies he advocated. And yes, he got a Nobel in Economics, but Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize. At any rate a REAL economist, Paul Krugman also got the Econ Nobel, and he earned it.

Gog it all. Why oh why do I even bother?

[Travis Retriever]

And here's some quick'n'easy fail from some MiserableOldFart. No, I'm not name-calling, that's actually his handle.

[yt]RWsx1X8PV_A[/yt]

Gog I wish this video had vote up/down buttons for the comments.

MiserableOldFart in red, me in blue.

Friedman and his economic theories were FRAUDS. Grow the fuck up. Unregulated capitalism IS worse than communism, but I don't advocate EITHER.

"Unregulated capitalism IS worse than communism" -- False, but not for the reason you might think. You incorrectly assume that either regulation would not exist in a free market, or it is somehow the exclusive province of govt. The former ignores the fact that regulation is an economic good; the latter supports monopolization. Would you like to clarify your assumption, or would you prefer to re-evaluate your position altogether?

Neither. Unregulated capitalism has never, ever existed for long in there real world. Communistic societies (with a small "c" when not at the beginning of a sentence) have endured successfully for thousands of years. Regulation is indeed the province of government. There is no such thing as "self regulation," and the "invisible hand" isn't regulation either. The fantasy that unregulated corp.s would be [shunned] by consumers assumes consumers would know, which, without regs, they would not.

In summation: Friedman was a fraud, and so are the policies he advocated. And yes, he got a Nobel in Economics, but Henry Kissinger got the Nobel Peace prize. At any rate a REAL economist, Paul Krugman also got the Econ Nobel, and he earned it.

Gog it all. Why oh why do I even bother?

Did he seriously just say that capitalism is worse than communism...while claiming capitalism has never existed in the real world?
This is your brain on statism, people.

[Travis Retriever]

From the comments of this video:
[yt]Pf21k1Wza0I[/yt]

"Sure Iran is only getting nucler power for peaceful purposes. They said so themselves. Just like India, Israel and Pakistan also said they created nuclear power plants only for peaceful purposes, and we all know they dont have nukes... oh wait......"--JegHarEnLillePik

[Ibrahim90]

From the comments of this video:
[yt]Pf21k1Wza0I[/yt]

"Sure Iran is only getting nucler power for peaceful purposes. They said so themselves. Just like India, Israel and Pakistan also said they created nuclear power plants only for peaceful purposes, and we all know they dont have nukes... oh wait......"--JegHarEnLillePik

completely ignoring the fact that the Iranian government has so far had a pretty good track record of refusing to use or produce unconventional weapons, even when they have been attacked with such weapons *cough*Saddam*cough*

for that you'd have to thank their religious council, as well as the fact that, being the inventors of Chivalry, the Iranians are just to stubborn and proud for that shit.

If they are building a nuclear weapon (or considering it), I would be very impressed: it would mean that the (secular element of) government there is both ballsy (for defying the religious council), and stupid (will inevitably piss off council--did I mention America?)

[Lord T Hawkeye]

This gu y k eeps yaming about Market fialures and how this supposedly jsutifies government action. I honeslty odn't know enougha bout the subject and am not usr e how to respond.

Allow me.

"I already addressed this point. Read the last portion of my previous reply, because you're sounding like a broken record player. And you're one to talk about baseless assumptions, let alone relevant ones."
Says the statist whom I'll bet dollars to donuts is about to repeat the EXACT same arguments I've heard from every hack job debater for the past 10 years with no variation whatsoever.

"When the hell did I claim my alternative was flawless?"
It doesn't need to be flawless but it does need to be morally consistent (and it isn't) and it does need to acomplish the goals it states it will (and it doesn't).

"What do you mean by government free-riders? Bureaucrats? Welfare recipients?"
And that's just the tip of the iceburg.  How about the richest generation in America living on the backs of the poorest?  I dare you to defend that.

"I do believe that any unemployment insurance scheme needs to adhere closely to the adage that people respond to incentives."
Then you shouldn't support government because it's policies seem to be utterly oblivious to this fact.  "We pay people to stay poor and for some reason, they're still poor!?  DERP!!!"

"But what are you insinuating, that because there is a potential for abuse (particularly for poorly designed policies) the government should cease to exist?"
No, potential implies something MIGHT happen.  The abuse spoken of here is standard procedure.  It's always been there case and there's no evidence that it's going to change any time soon.  Shall I spell it out for you?   Governments being bought and paid for by special interests, mainly the rich, IS. NOT. A. NEW. THING.
Is that clear enough for you?

"Your free market alternative doesn't have a savoury track record."
Citation needed please.
Plus considering yours is the one that engages in warfare, deficit spending and immoral imprisonment, you're really in no position to talk.

"Governments can sometimes intervene to address market failures. End of story."
Sure they can.  The question is, do they actually solve them?
Well, I don't see the economy improving, do you?

"Tax revenue can be used efficiently."
No, no they can't.  Mises mathematically proved back in the 30's that government CANNOT be efficient even under the most ideal scenario imaginable.  If you disagree, then research his findings and point out where he's gone wrong.  He did his homework.  Now the ball is in your court to do yours.  Your word is not good enough.

"Also, taxes themselves can function to alter behaviour for the better - excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco, environmental degradation, gasoline, and carbon emissions come to mind."
You mean like the time you banned alcohol and everyone stopped drinking?
Or how nobody does drugs now because you banned that?
Or how about how New Yorkers are all slim, trim, men and women of steel thanks go Mayor Bloomberg's policies?
I could go on forever....

"Your ideas are so crass."
We're not the ones who have to point guns at people to make them accept ours.  Barbarian...

[tnu]

Thanks again Hawkeye. a lifesave ras always..

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]B6WcjVtJHGk[/yt]

The fail begins at "however."

I don't care how much advertising is done for unhealthy food, at the end of the day, it's MY CHOICE to eat that shit.

As someone who would be considered obese, I'm entirely at fault for choosing to eat the way I do. I'm not going to sue McDonald's because they agreed to sell me the double cheeseburgers that I wanted.

[BlameThe1st]

I want to say apple to oranges, but this seems more like apples to lawn chairs.

[Travis Retriever]

I want to say apple to oranges, but this seems more like apples to lawn chairs.

A lot could be said here, so I guess I'll stick with the most obvious point.  We are NOT the state!