Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

I thought the supply curse sloping up was how it usually works? O_o

Typo. Fixed. What I get for posting after not getting enough sleep.

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

From George Takei's facebook.

Though Arizona's governor had the good sense to veto a similar bill, Mississippi's didn't. These "religious freedom" bills grant businesses that are open to the public the "right" to refuse service to certain people (i.e. LGBT couples) based on the business owners' religious belief. But this fundamentally misunderstand what freedom of religion is. That right, enshrined in the First Amendment, means the government cannot force you to accept any form of religion. But your own religious views? The right to them extends only as far as the tip of your nose. That's how we live in a pluralistic society.
I call upon good businesses in Mississippi to refuse to serve legislators and the governor who voted for this, on the ground it would offend their beliefs to serve anything to that lot. LIKE this status if you agree that such laws should never see the light of day.
More to come on how we will work to get this repulsive and un-American bill repealed or overturned.

This what pisses me off about the LGBT community. I'm pretty certain that I set up an atheist restaurant and refused to serve religious people they would either A. not say shit about it or B. Champion me.
GOD DAMN! This shit pisses me off so much!

[Travis Retriever]

From George Takei's facebook.

This what pisses me off about the LGBT community. I'm pretty certain that I set up an atheist restaurant and refused to serve religious people they would either A. not say shit about it or B. Champion me.
GOD DAMN! This shit pisses me off so much!

+1 cluon for you.  And this is from a bi-sexual male.
@Takei + company, freedom of religion extends as long as you aren't initiating force against anyone. 'Refusal of service because you're LGBT' is NOT an initiation of force.  Deal with it.

What's more, if anything he should let them do it.  That way we can tell who's a bigot and can boycott instead of not, which kinda means those laws are more or less FUNDING bigots, are they not?

[dallen68]

+1 cluon for you.  And this is from a bi-sexual male.
@Takei + company, freedom of religion extends as long as you aren't initiating force against anyone. 'Refusal of service because you're LGBT' is NOT an initiation of force.  Deal with it.

What's more, if anything he should let them do it.  That way we can tell who's a bigot and can boycott instead of not, which kinda means those laws are more or less FUNDING bigots, are they not?

Besides which, you can't tell by looking at someone if they're religious/lgbt or anything like that; so it's not the same thing as with race/gender/something like that. In this case, keep your mouth shut, and you'll get served just fine - and if you have to point out that your religious, etc just to make a point, then your not being not served because of your faith, your being not served because your an obnoxious twit.

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

Besides which, you can't tell by looking at someone if they're religious/lgbt or anything like that; so it's not the same thing as with race/gender/something like that. In this case, keep your mouth shut, and you'll get served just fine - and if you have to point out that your religious, etc just to make a point, then your not being not served because of your faith, your being not served because your an obnoxious twit.

The thing that drives me crazy is that these people want "equality" but are completely unaware of the gun they are putting to people's head.
"You're such a bully! Now excuse me while I force you to conform to my ideals by pointing a gun at your head."

[dallen68]

The thing that drives me crazy is that these people want "equality" but are completely unaware of the gun they are putting to people's head.
"You're such a bully! Now excuse me while I force you to conform to my ideals by pointing a gun at your head."

I do not *not* agree.

[Skm1091]

[yt]iNoH6yGJoyA[/yt]

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

[yt]iNoH6yGJoyA[/yt]

Well This confirms that Game Journalism is dead.

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

[Travis Retriever]

Well This confirms that Game Journalism is dead.

Well, implying it was ever "alive" to begin with.  If there's any one thing we can all thank Anita for, it's revealing game journalists as the lying packs of jackals that they are.

[Travis Retriever]

Not only stupid in message, but also in form.  There is so much text on such a small pic you can't even tell who/what kinds of people he's talking about!

[Skm1091]

[yt]xxIIIRnVeTw[/yt]

Every Volound response to me.

[spoiler]First he brings up a the Hand Grenade Test by C0nc0rdance.

I respond by saying that a grenade could theoretically be used as a defensive weapon.

Then he responds with that grenades are indiscrimate. Which then I respond with the notion that you could use a none lethal stun grenade or find a way to detonate the grenade remotely.

He then responds with

"So what?"

so they are extremely hazardous to have around - irresponsible. should people also be allowed to own 10kt suitcase nukes? do you have an arbitrary line or none at all?

"And you do realize there are are non-lethal stun grenades right?"

non-lethal stun grenades are not frag grenades which are what was being discussed, and are therefore completely irrelevant.

"And that postman thing can be solved by placing them in places where the post man will not go or finding a way to remotely detonate them without a wire."

the number of accidental homicides that result from them would obviously far exceed the number of kills on burglars, regardless of the precautions taken. this is ridiculous.
  even the military understands this problem with terms like "friendly fire" and "danger close". rigging your house with tripwires and explosives is something only an absolute moron would do, likewise with having an MAD solution in case the burglar gets the upper hand.

civilians owning grenades is obviously retarded to any sensible person.

He brings up the infamous nuke argument that many statist idiots bring up when their gun control views are challenged. My Response

Ah the infamous nuke argument.You ever considered the reason why people don't use nukes for self-defense is because of these reasons? 1. Nukes are cumbersome 2. The blast radius is so big that it will kill you along with everyone in couple dozen mile radius and 3. NUKES are EXPENSIVE. Also I suggest you read Murray N Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty on the issue of Nukes.

You do realize people in the US used to own Cannons, Dynamite and many other variety of explosives, right? Same in the UK as well before all their gun control laws. 

He then responds with this piece of work.

+skm1091 are you trolling? you think that people dont use nukes because they are too cumbersome and because there is no way to avoid killing yourself with it?

get the fuck out of this conversation you moron.

" 3. NUKES are EXPENSIVE."
http://i.imgur.com/XNRlbYK.gif;

Notice how to arrogant motherfucker doesn't even try to come up with a proper rebuttal.So the idiocy continues. I respond with

Compared to a handgun and or grenade yes the nuke is more complicated. Are you seriously implying that people will actually CARRY the case for protection?! See how flawed your logic is.

Yes you would kill yourself with it, since most defense cases are a couple dozen meters at most, especially if it is a ten Kilotons. The blast radius on that sucker would be at least a kilometer wide NOT INCLUDING FALLOUT. So yeah detonate a suitcase nuke against someone that close and you (and a thousands of your neighbors) go up in a mushroom cloud.

If you haven't noticed, even the smallest nukes cost a small fortune to buy. And that's not including the cost the radioactive material, the cost of maintenance etc.

He then made fun of my supposed "mental issues" and not even try to come up with a proper rebuttal to the comment above. And then there is this piece of steaming horse shit (see bellow)

you didnt do anything. you speculated wildly like a puppy-eyed 10 year old, saying laughable tripe such as this:

"If you haven't noticed, even the smallest nukes cost a small fortune to buy. And that's not including the cost the radioactive material, the cost of maintenance etc."

if you werent laughing while typing that as part of some kind of elaborate troll, you are too stupid to be worth talking to

My response

I brought the cost up to show you even if they were legal just how unlikely it is for the average joe to get his hands on one. And my point about the impracticality of using a nuke for personal defense still stands.

BTW you never answered my point of people owning dynamite and cannons.

you have the concept-grasping skills of a young child.

you never made a point about people owning dynamite and cannons. you asserted that people used to own them. so? who gives a shit? is that supposed to be a point? people used to own slaves. who gives a fuck? what relevance does it have to the actual subject. are you trying to impress my with your knowledge/perspective? stating that people used to own dynamite/cannons is vapid.

My response to the above and most likely my final response to this name calling, no substance, pontificating douchebag

Piers Morgan is that you? All name calling and no substance.

You brought up nukes so I mentioned nukes

You're seriously comparing an object to a human being? That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard. You claimed that allowing people to own grenades is a bad idea because people would blow themselves and others up all over the place. Seeing that people have handled stuff like dynamite in the past, that negates your point.

You know what I am done with you. Have fun putting your hands over your ears and going la la la la la, like the coward and doofus you are.

See ya 

[/spoiler]

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.cracked.com/article_21043_5-terrible-things-i-learned-as-corporate-whistleblower.html
So where's the increased accountability your policies were supposed to bring, statists?

Considering that corporations are, by definition, a legal fiction created by government with privileges granted to it by government--debt shield, immunity, etc, is it any wonder they can do this kind of beyond cult like shit?  It's why I cringe whenever some window breaker uses examples of corporations to prove that the free market doesn't work (or when some idiot like HowTheWorldWorks defends corporations as if they were another free market business).  Um, folks, corporations are a government creation.  In every way that counts.  It's YOUR red headed step child, statists, not ours.

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

[yt]rwrIkvI5Niw[/yt]
If I were talking to this Z Winkler face to face I'm pretty sure I would be violating the NAP!
The asshole is accusing Shane of either trolling or mental illness.

[MrBogosity]

[yt]rwrIkvI5Niw[/yt]
If I were talking to this Z Winkler face to face I'm pretty sure I would be violating the NAP!
The asshole is accusing Shane of either trolling or mental illness.

And ironically, consider which video he's posting on, and ask yourself if that's how he'd be behaving if he REALLY believed what he's advocating, instead of just THINKING that he believes it.