Fail Quotes

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

https://inkbunny.net/journalview.php?id=134461
I stopped reading after he called the internet (or whatever) 'owned by the people' (whatever that means).  He also disabled comments too.  Shame, I was going to link him this (epic win) video regarding Net Neutrality:
[yt]8j95dVw6Kbc[/yt]

Speaking of which.
[yt]k-xSP_T0VqU[/yt]

[Travis Retriever]

Original Post:  http://party9999999.deviantart.com/art/Voter-Apathy-455877634
So much for communists being different from the Republicrats...

[Travis Retriever]

Speaking of which.
[yt]k-xSP_T0VqU[/yt]

Natch.  Speaking of Wolfblade, he made the same Journal on his Furaffinity.net page, but without the disabled comments.  I facepalmed when one of them said to a poster, "Actually, he can dictate what you say simply by blocking you. It's not wise to be presumptive."  Oh grow up, YamatoIouko.  The guy you're responding to can do that too, so big whoop.  And yeah, it would just make Wolfblade a douche.  A furry liberal who's also a pillock who doesn't mind pulling dubious shit when it's convenient for them while blasting the "Not We" for doing it? Color me surprised...I'd link this guy to Shane's video on Net Neutrality, but, as I said in one of my first FA journals, I will not do politics or religion on FA.  Period.  I'm just there for the porn.  As my DA journals and comments should make obvious, on DA however, politics/religion/etc are fair game for me there.

[evensgrey]

"Do you see a pattern here?"
Is it, 'resistance is futile, join the borg or die?"

Another one is "I can make up shit", since I wouldn't exactly call Henry Ford, the guy who invented the 8 hour workday, a Liberal.

[MrBogosity]

Original Post:  http://party9999999.deviantart.com/art/Voter-Apathy-455877634
So much for communists being different from the Republicrats...

Really? And here I thought they were elected by people who vote for the bad politicians. Once again, we see statists eschewing personal responsibility.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I really liked this guy's video on moon hoaxers but man is this piss poor reasoning on nuclear energy

[yt]KOBEloymLQA[/yt]

[evensgrey]

I really liked this guy's video on moon hoaxers but man is this piss poor reasoning on nuclear energy

[yt]KOBEloymLQA[/yt]

It appears this is the kind of person behind us not having built those long-term storage facilities for nuclear waste that we've had the proof (mostly from Oklo) will be safe for the required timeframe (provided nobody makes a serious effort to break into them, but we're fairly sure we can leave warnings that anyone able to do so would be able to decipher before they actually did). From Oklo, we know precisely what components are a problem for migration and what are not, and we know all we need to do is prevent water migrating through the waste. We've got multiple layers of protection for that, starting with putting the waste inside huge blocks of ancient granite (which is quite impervious to water) that nothing is going to happen to quickly.

He also betrays a profound ignorance of nuclear reactors. No, breeder reactors are NOT self-sustaining. They need to have their fuel replaced just like any reactor, and even those that use the same type of fuel they produce still need a feedstock of material to convert into fuel, which then has to be processed to separate it from the unconverted material and other wastes. The feedstock is (for fast breeders) taken from the reprocessed fuel of conventional reactors, which contains lots of U238. (The U238 is the primary neutron shielding of a fast breeder reactor, as it needs to absorb neutrons to start the process that will convert it into plutonium.) The bred material then needs to be reprocessed again to separate out the plutonium from the unconverted U238 and waste.

To do this optimally, you need to put all the plants together, so you're not shipping this stuff all over the world. (Wouldn't everyone feel better if you only had to shift that spent fuel a few hundred feet to be reprocessed, not a few hundred miles into another country? It's much cheaper to not have to ship it all over the place as well.) People like this idiot object to that as well.

And the stupidest idea of all: That a government could possibly regulate this in such a way as to make it safe. I don't know of any privately owned reactors that have had incidents as bad as government owned ones. (Three Mile Island caused no detectable harm to anyone, and Fukushima Daiichi is predicted to produce increases in cancer rates that are smaller than the effects of choices like age of first pregnancy. Compare that to Chernobyl or Idaho Falls, where the whole operating crew died, in both cases because a government employee decided to do something monumentally stupid with the reactor.)

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]mIJhAE85NGE[/yt]
From the comments of the above video,

"Anybody that says a corporation is a creation of the state has never read Man, Economy & State by Murray Rothbard. There's absolutely nothing from stopping a Limited Liability Corporation from existing and abusing people in an anarchistic society.

It should be clear...that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations
Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy & State

As long as firms like Blackwater, Halliburton, Enron, and Koch can find willing customers they are free to do whatever they like in an an-cap society."--Justin Templer.

Sorry, but as they exist, corporations are, by legal definition, a creation of government.  Deal with it.  Would it kill him to take 5 seconds to check a fucking legal dictionary? My god, man.  And yeah, appeal to authority.  Rothbard was smart and amazing, but if he says corporations are not a creation and legal fiction of the state, he's wrong.  True, it would certainly be possible to have joint ownership in the fom of that (without state favor) in a free market, but that doesn't change the nature of corporations.  And yeah, because of that, it sounds like Rothbard is confusing a corporation with a Trust, much like how he conflated copyright and patents.  And no, you can't use them as examples, as they benefit from state privilege.  So calling them private is like calling public utilities private because you still have to pay the bills for them.  Gimme a fucking break.

[Skm1091]

[yt]mIJhAE85NGE[/yt]
From the comments of the above video,

"Anybody that says a corporation is a creation of the state has never read Man, Economy & State by Murray Rothbard. There's absolutely nothing from stopping a Limited Liability Corporation from existing and abusing people in an anarchistic society.

It should be clear...that corporations are not at all monopolistic privileges; they are free associations of individuals pooling their capital. On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations
Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy & State

As long as firms like Blackwater, Halliburton, Enron, and Koch can find willing customers they are free to do whatever they like in an an-cap society."--Justin Templer.

Sorry, but as they exist, corporations are, by legal definition, a creation of government.  Deal with it.  Would it kill him to take 5 seconds to check a fucking legal dictionary? My god, man.  And yeah, appeal to authority.  Rothbard was smart and amazing, but if he says corporations are not a creation and legal fiction of the state, he's wrong.  True, it would certainly be possible to have joint ownership in the fom of that (without state favor) in a free market, but that doesn't change the nature of corporations.  And yeah, because of that, it sounds like Rothbard is confusing a corporation with a Trust, much like how he conflated copyright and patents.  And no, you can't use them as examples, as they benefit from state privilege.  So calling them private is like calling public utilities private because you still have to pay the bills for them.  Gimme a fucking break.

From the same video

TJ AKA the Amazing Atheist

Anarchism is more analogous to religion than governance. Governments, while flawed, have been shown to work. My tax dollars demonstrably do pay for roads, bridges, social safety nets, defense (although I do often take issue with how the military I help fund is used), etc.

Anarchism has never been demonstrated to work outside of very small communal societies that usually implode. Even the internet, the tool your using to spout this garbage, was invented by the government, using tax money. So, you're a fucking moron, basically. And Anarchism is your dogmatic, irrational religion. 

[Altimadark]

Original Post:  http://party9999999.deviantart.com/art/Voter-Apathy-455877634
So much for communists being different from the Republicrats...

From the same user. The third part almost landed this one into fav quotes... and then he ruins it in the description.

The Obama Equations by party 9999999
"If you want the Libertarian equation, it's basically the same as the conservative one."

[Travis Retriever]

From the same user. The third part almost landed this one into fav quotes... and then he ruins it in the description.

The Obama Equations by party 9999999
"If you want the Libertarian equation, it's basically the same as the conservative one."

I know right? Hell, Shane was saying the third one at least since 2007 and I doubt he's unique in that sense! Where the hell have these commie imbeciles been?

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Translation: "Not using the product you're paying us to provide allows us to keep overselling our capacity, keep profit margins high, without investing in infrastructure."

Fuck you AT&T

[MrBogosity]

Translation: "Not using the product you're paying us to provide allows us to keep overselling our capacity, keep profit margins high, without investing in infrastructure."

Fuck you AT&T

Better than charging you for going over like they used to.

[MrBogosity]

Wow @ Timothy Dannenhoffer:

[yt]xsWgEqXfUXA[/yt]

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I should point out I have an unlimited data plan.

I got into an argument on facebook over Glen Greenwald releasing the names of people the NSA has spied on. This person decided that it was hardcore zealots of Ayn Rand who created the NSA inf  the first place. When I asked for further clarification this is what I got...

Ayn Rand inspires individuals to relinquish all their support of social welfare systems. The business end of the political power landscape is the strongest arm-there is nothing that can be done to depose them. Randian ideas will, however, allow people who incorporate her philosophies into their own to be able to justify seizing what power they feel they can wield - which would be to destroy the social institutions that don't benefit the strong arm of business while simultaneously cutting taxes.

It's a kill all birds with one stone mega win for those in power, because let's be honest, business and politics are married, and they don't believe in divorce. The libertarian factor is zero threat to this arrangement from any conceivable perspective, because no group would be able to marshal enough influence to change the game.

[yt]5hfYJsQAhl0[/yt]