Fail Quotes

[FSBlueApocalypse]

The sad part is, she's probably right.

Didn't Goldwater win the nomination in 1964?

[tnu]

Cracked.com had the best counter to this.  If it was that simple to influence people, why aren't government doing it?  The fact that no government has ever been able to successfully utilize subliminal advertising no matter how badly they wanted to should be a confirmation that it doesn't work.

of course you realize you're talking about people who can lose money on a concessions stand!


I'll probably be posting a lot of gems to a message board I frequent.

The more I here [sic] the word 'redistribution' the more I like the sound of it. Maybe its [sic] because the right uses it so often in a negative way it must be a good thing. – Psygnosis

And in response to a question I asked that went like this.

Then why don't you mug the richest individual or gorup you know and donate it to the poorest individual or gorup you know. Tell them that it wasn't stealing and that it was just "redistribution" See how that holds up.

I got the following form another user.

I don't know how well it would hold up under the law, but I would gladly support stealing from a Bill Gates or a Donald Trump to give to the poor.

[VectorM]

Because Bill Gates just hasn't given his fair share to the poor yet.

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

Because Bill Gates just hasn't given his fair share to the poor yet.

The response I got to that once was "He just did all that to get Tax deductions. That's the only reason the 1% ever helps the poor. To help their own greed."

My response was, "So?"

[MrBogosity]

The response I got to that once was "He just did all that to get Tax deductions. That's the only reason the 1% ever helps the poor. To help their own greed."

This argument has NEVER made sense to me. If they donate a million dollars to charity, they'd be able to deduct that million and save paying $350,000 in taxes. But it's not like they keep the million! Even if you consider the $350,000 as some kind of gift to them from the government, they're still out $650k!

[FSBlueApocalypse]

[VectorM]

You should thank that guy for providing the evidence that our culture brainwashes us towards socialism, trololololz.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

Besides Jesus, are the other 4 really socialist in the first place?

[AnCap Dave]

Besides Jesus, are the other 4 really socialist in the first place?

The only one that would count as a socialist was The Grinch, because he stole people's stuff and eventually gave it back to them, but that's only if you're really desperate to call one of them a socialist.

Socialism requires the use of force to take from one to give to another, and last I checked, the others never really did that.

[MrBogosity]

Calling George Bailey a socialist is INCREDIBLE fail. He was about as free-market capitalist as you can get! He formed his own bank, as well as his own affordable housing project (just like Mary Ruwart), and he treated his customers well, understanding the value of consumer loyalty. If anyone's a socialist, it's Henry Potter (although he's more accurately a corporatist, but there's a fine line), relying on government force to get what he wants, and, as we see in the movie, even ends up becoming the government himself without George's influence on the town.

[tnu]

My god. The bogosity in this thread has to be seen to be believed.

http://gtx0.com/view.php?post=72289

For reference we have #85. Our local Nazi pretending to be libertarian. Then we have Pink Peruvian Flying Bear one of our actual libertarians. Temerit our local die-hard Democrat. pacman who's sort of center left. But the one i'm focusing on is Psygnosis, a pseudo-intellectual left-wing statist who has no understanding of how to argue. You just have to see it for yourselves. Hell if anyone wants to join in and help fill in any gaps I missed it's pretty easy. You can just jump in as a guest. Don't even have to register.

[tnu]

My god. It just keeps gettign more absurd. try this on for size

The problem with "only donate to things you believe in," is that you will wind up with large chunks of the country without access to decent education, without any form of defense, with increased poverty and malnutrition. Also, because not every city or state has the same income. I'd suspect the "fund only what you believe in" thing would also increase the gap in wealth as wealthy communities would fund a lot in their own community while poorer communities wouldn't be able to fund much even if they wanted to because they don't have the funds.

This should be easy to counter but I can't even find the words. Somebody here could probably articulate a response better then I could

[MrBogosity]

This should be easy to counter but I can't even find the words. Somebody here could probably articulate a response better then I could

The biggest refutation is that government "charity" ends up going disproportionately to RICHER areas.

It also implies that poor people are stupid and can't do for themselves, so none of them would create jobs or engage in economic activity on their own. Also, if people are willing to donate money to charities that go into subsaharan Africa, why would they be unwilling to do it to charities that go to rural US?

It also fundamentally misunderstands the nature and effect of charity. Charity is a short-term, individual solution. Trying to use it as a macro solution just doesn't work; you need economic activity for that. And to increase economic activity, all you have to do is set people free.

The argument matches neither logic nor the empirical data.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Watching one of Moviebob's reviews for the movie "In Time."  He claims the movie is a metaphor for unrestrained capitalism which does seem to be the case.

Yeah, cause when I think of free markets, a society where the government regulates people's very lifespans and rigs it behind the scenes is totally the first thing that comes to mind!

Cripes, ever since Karl Marx, people seem keen on taking economic advice from the people who are least qualified to give it.  Marx was born with a silver spoon in his mouth and never did a day's work in his life.  And now we get people who couldn't be more detached from the everyman if they lived on Mars doling out their take on the economy.  People seriously should be falling down laughing at the absurdity of it.

[tnu]

Thanks for that one Shane. was having trouble putting together my argument. at any rate i have a few more gems to share with the community.

What if I want to form a group that serves to seize and destroy property? Won't that stand just as good a chance at succeeding? Or does only the good prevail in this stateless society?

I asked if he meant the IRS. This question came form a monarchist no less.

But then what's to stop the armed mob from luring away "police officers" with offers of greater wealth and intimidation and in turn becoming more powerful than the police themselves? Nothing.

Um.... What's stopping them now exaclty?

Of course we would have the right to defend ourselves in a stateless society, but would that be enough? What if one charismatic individual were able to band together with a number of other individuals and demand that property were surrendered to him and his cronies? What if we were powerless to stop this group?

You mean eminent domain?

How do we ensure the courts deal out fair justice?

How exactly do we do that now?