Fail Quotes

[Ibrahim90]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/opinion/07krugman.html (I think the fact that it's by Krugman should be warning enough).

though it's about College Educationa nd the Economy, he's blaming technology and globalization on the loss of middle class jobs. no mention of Govco's role.....

where's that Frenchman's article about boycotting the sun again?

[MrBogosity]

where's that Frenchman's article about boycotting the sun again?

Bastiat: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

[Ibrahim90]

Bastiat: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

thanks. I needed it to feel better.

[Goaticus]

Discussing why he is against contraception in general, not just mandatory coverage for contraceptives under Obamacare.

"One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, "Well, that's okay. Contraception's okay."

It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also [inaudible], but also procreative. "

Rick Santorum

And why that now matters http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57377175-503544/poll-rick-santorum-takes-slight-lead-in-gop-race/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Luckily a lot of Ron Paul supporters can't stand him and I've gotten several of them to take a look at Lee Wrights as an alternative.

[VectorM]

Free markets do not self-correct abuses.
Free markets do not empower the little guy
Free markets do not optimize the use of the means of production.

Free markets do one thing, and one thing only: they set prices so as to balance supply and demand. Nothing more.

From the comments on this artice: http://www.cracked.com/article_19683_6-terrifying-user-agreements-youve-probably-accepted_p2.html

[Travis Retriever]

From the comments on this article: http://www.cracked.com/article_19683_6-terrifying-user-agreements-youve-probably-accepted_p2.html

One of the many reasons I avoid their article comments like the fucking plague--along with the porn/anime/video game forums.  Abandon logic, reason and sanity all ye who enter.

[VectorM]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=abd6d40c15e0947af87ccdc6e4f3c469&t=230250

But seriously. Why not just get rid of marriage all
Together. I mean the governments role in it. Why does government really need to be that involved in people's lives?

Because people want the things that require government involvement. Like wrongful death, immigration, inheritance, tax law, and of course divorce.

There are very few people who want to do away with all that.

I don't know how Shane could stand that place for so long.

[Goaticus]

"    "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues.

    That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I'm aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

    - Rick Santorum

This is for all the people that claim to be supporting Santorum because he's somehow for a limited Government.

[MrBogosity]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=abd6d40c15e0947af87ccdc6e4f3c469&t=230250

Because people want the things that require government involvement. Like wrongful death, immigration, inheritance, tax law, and of course divorce.

There are very few people who want to do away with all that.

I don't know how Shane could stand that place for so long.

Wow at the fail:

Originally Posted by Beerina
I do. It's none of the government's damned business.

Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.

And that can work out just fine if you get rid of other modern silliness such as equal rights for women (or any rights at all). As soon as women are back to being treated like property, there is no reason why a man should only have one wife. After all, I can have two cars and two shirts as well.

(Guess it's impossible for them all to be consenting adults. Guess it's also impossible for a woman to have multiple husbands, or a situation with 2 or more husbands and 2 or more wives.)

I couldn't bring myself to read beyond the first page. I do NOT miss that place!

[MrBogosity]

"    "They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn't get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn't get involved in cultural issues.

    That is not how traditional conservatives view the world. There is no such society that I'm aware of, where we've had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

    - Rick Santorum

This is for all the people that claim to be supporting Santorum because he's somehow for a limited Government.

Santorum is for "limited government" the way the Pope is for "limited religion."

[VectorM]

From that same thread.

It's established itself in those things, but that doesn't really answer the question of WHY should this be the case.

For the same reason that my local Chinese restaurant has the "Famile Feat #2"(sic). So many people want exactly the same thing (or close enough) that making a one-size-fits-all option is the most economical. It saves the couple involved and the government a ton of money and time.

Imagine if it were not the case:
Partners: We wanna get married.
JOP: Ok. You want Right of survivorship with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint child custody with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint property ownership with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want automatic inheritance with that?
(continue for appx 1000 more federal and state marriage benefits)

Poly groups can (and do) simply write their own contracts, like ordering al-la-carte at the aforementioned eatery with poor spelling (but awesome beef and peppers). Trying to make a one-size-fits-all option that takes multiple partners into account would be too much work for too little benefit.

Marriage would be a lot easier if religion hadn't decided to get caught up in what had been a purely state affair.

That last quote was bolded by me and...WOW...just...WOW. Not only is that so incredibly ironic, but I don't think he is even correct about that statement. Isn't marriage a state affair BECAUSE of religion?

[VectorM]

Despite the theories of equality between the sexes and even anecdotal examples of cases of polygamy with one wife and multiple husbands, in practice polygamy always ends up being dominated by cases of one man with multiple women. And the effects of polygamy when practiced widely are incredibly damaging to society. Men at the top of the social pyramid get multiple women, men at the bottom get nobody. And that leads to all sorts of social pathology, including widespread misogyny. It's no coincidence that polygamy is widespread in so many terribly screwed up societies (like Afghanistan, for example) but absent from basically every first-world country.

OK, that's the last quote from that forum, I am depressed enough already.

Edit: Shane, are you familiar with the JREF user "Ziggurat"? That guy is just one facepalm after another.

[evensgrey]

Wow at the fail:
Yes, it is. The government gives tax breaks to married couples, and pays for the courts to regulate the dissolution of marriages. That makes it their business.

(Guess it's impossible for them all to be consenting adults. Guess it's also impossible for a woman to have multiple husbands, or a situation with 2 or more husbands and 2 or more wives.)

I couldn't bring myself to read beyond the first page. I do NOT miss that place!

That's pretty much the way that one of Canada's courts rules when deciding that the mere fact that Canada's (partial, incidentally) bigamy prohibition is a blatant violation of the right to religious freedom recognized in our Constitution couldn't be enough to throw it out.

[evensgrey]

From that same thread.
For the same reason that my local Chinese restaurant has the "Famile Feat #2"(sic). So many people want exactly the same thing (or close enough) that making a one-size-fits-all option is the most economical. It saves the couple involved and the government a ton of money and time.

Imagine if it were not the case:
Partners: We wanna get married.
JOP: Ok. You want Right of survivorship with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint child custody with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want joint property ownership with that?
Partners: Yup.
JOP: Ok. You want automatic inheritance with that?
(continue for appx 1000 more federal and state marriage benefits)

Poly groups can (and do) simply write their own contracts, like ordering al-la-carte at the aforementioned eatery with poor spelling (but awesome beef and peppers). Trying to make a one-size-fits-all option that takes multiple partners into account would be too much work for too little benefit.

Marriage would be a lot easier if religion hadn't decided to get caught up in what had been a purely state affair.

That last quote was bolded by me and...WOW...just...WOW. Not only is that so incredibly ironic, but I don't think he is even correct about that statement. Isn't marriage a state affair BECAUSE of religion?

No, actually, or at least not directly.  Marriage is a state affair (at least the way it's done now, with licenses and State restrictions on who can officiate) because of racism.  The real reason that governments took control of marriage in the US, at least, was to prevent black people and white people from marrying each other.

[MrBogosity]

Shane, are you familiar with the JREF user "Ziggurat"?

(Sigh) Yes...