Fail Quotes

[tnu]

Government regulated monopolies and oligopolies and the like are usually natural monopolies and actually save you money.

and this is pretty much RIGHT AFTER somebody tried touse the "without government there would be monopolies and that would be bad." argument.  So they have NO excuse for this blatant special pleeding.

[Skm1091]

and this is pretty much RIGHT AFTER somebody tried touse the "without government there would be monopolies and that would be bad." argument.  So they have NO excuse for this blatant special pleeding.

Who ever said this are obviously oblivious to the massive debt we have.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]WOv4g552h5E[/yt]
Pardon me while I vomit blood...

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]DWrMeBR8W-c[/yt]
And vastly more still.

[tnu]

1

) Obama is ending the wars (albeit far too slowly)
2) Romney/Ryan wanted to cut spending and taxes
3) There really isn't a good argument against quantitative easing

No electable candidate is interested in balancing the budget because there is very little point in doing so. Additionally attempting to balance it during the current state of economic affairs would likely backfire and lead to more debt.

[AnCap Dave]

"Being Liberal" posted this idiocy:

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

You know I've heard people say Japan is a "rational" nation, to which I point out this bullshit!

http://rt.com/news/japan-anti-nuclear-protests-129/

[tnu]

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/05/29/2563350/the-shock-of-obamacare-might-be.html


I havn't read through this yet

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

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/04/the_question_libertarians_just_cant_answer/

And then, this comment showed up in the The Skeptical Libertarian's facebook post.

"We have tried libertarianism... it was back in the Dark Ages when rule of law didn't exist. Libertarianism existed LONG BEFORE any existing type of governance, when individuals had to essentially fend for themselves with no help from the community or surrounding society. Sorry, but I'd rather not take steps back into the Dark Ages. Libertarianism in its current form is a sad joke... it's almost comical in it's naiveté."

Do I even need to long list of what's wrong with this?

[MrBogosity]

The real fail is the question itself: "If your approach is so great, why hasn't any country anywhere in the world ever tried it?"

Yeah, would they have said that to the Wright Brothers? To Robert Goddard? Charles Darwin? Isaac Singer? Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak? Anyone who ever had a new idea?

The people who ask that question are the people who will never, ever change the world.

[Altimadark]

http://www.theolympian.com/2013/05/29/2563350/the-shock-of-obamacare-might-be.html


I havn't read through this yet

It's a piece by Paul Krugman where he goes over some of the basic talking points on Obamacare, then claims it's going to "shock" people by suddenly providing health coverage to millions of people, without stating how it will do so.

So yes, it does look as if there's an Obamacare shock coming: the shock of learning that a public program designed to help a lot of people can, strange to say, end up helping a lot of people — especially when government officials actually try to make it work.

Right away I notice the circular logic, but I'm sure he's committing at least half a dozen other fallacies here.

[BlameThe1st]

"We have tried libertarianism... it was back in the Dark Ages when rule of law didn't exist. Libertarianism existed LONG BEFORE any existing type of governance, when individuals had to essentially fend for themselves with no help from the community or surrounding society. Sorry, but I'd rather not take steps back into the Dark Ages. Libertarianism in its current form is a sad joke... it's almost comical in it's naiveté."

What is up with anti-libertarians trying to link libertarianism with feudalism? Last time I checked, feudalism was a form of government. Kings, queens, barons, and other monarchs were government officials. Feudalism, by its very nature, is authoritarianism, as it holds that one individual holds supreme executive power over all others. Not to mention that they held all the property to themselves, which just flies in the face of personal property rights. The comparison is so flimsy that I'm amazed that anti-libertarians aren't ashamed to make it.

But speaking of the Dark Ages, there is medival Iceland, which was an example of anarchism: http://mises.org/daily/1121

[MrBogosity]

James Criss's comments here: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=602665306410568&set=a.508311029179330.124056.343696165640818

[Skm1091]

What is up with anti-libertarians trying to link libertarianism with feudalism? Last time I checked, feudalism was a form of government. Kings, queens, barons, and other monarchs were government officials. Feudalism, by its very nature, is authoritarianism, as it holds that one individual holds supreme executive power over all others. Not to mention that they held all the property to themselves, which just flies in the face of personal property rights. The comparison is so flimsy that I'm amazed that anti-libertarians aren't ashamed to make it.

But speaking of the Dark Ages, there is medival Iceland, which was an example of anarchism: http://mises.org/daily/1121

Lets not forget Celtic Ireland.

[BlameThe1st]

On a side note, I made the grave mistake of reading the article AND the comment section. WHY DO I READ THE COMMENTS? No good can come from that!

Great. Now my brain has melted from the sheer bogosity! It's leaking from my ears and into my shoe. I need to read something smart to recover from this. Bye!