Fail Quotes

[Ibrahim90]

Ah, got it.  In my defense, I was really tired and sleepy when I made that post.

You're welcome.

no worries. just today I accidentally pulled money out of Dad's account (long story). have fixed that as best as possible, but Dad is, as usual, understanding. his only concern was that it was going to do that every month. what I find puzzling is that he doesn't want the money back (EDIT: mostly because: 1) I didn't ask, and 2) I'm sure he needs the money as much as I needed to make the payment) . will still hand over all of it when and if I can.

OK, really degressing.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]fpbOEoRrHyU[/yt]

Ignoring the government's role in this stuff as usual, I see, mr. media meat puppets.

[Travis Retriever]

ArcFlayer: "The problem here isn't the copyright law, it's that some dumbass dickhole either forgot that parodies don't infringe copyright, or knew they didn't and purposefully twisted it until it somehow kind of resembled a possible case."--http://blamethe1st.deviantart.com/journal/HISHE-Targeted-By-Copyright-Nazis-458828484

Sorry, AF, but these laws aren't "malfunctioning." This is how they are supposed to work.  To crush the little guy at the benefit of big corporations.  Who does he think lobbied for these laws to begin with?

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/03/baker-forced-to-make-gay-wedding-cakes-undergo-sensitivity-training-after/
Gays, this is NOT how you gain acceptance.

[MrBogosity]

A lot of the comments here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-libertarian-pizza-deliverer-could-cost-republicans-the-senate/article/2549393/comments#disqus_thread

"This up coming election is a MUST WIN" Funny how I hear that EVERY election...

"Then you have the Libertarians. A party founded by a socialist Democrat, David Nolan, who was mad at the College Republicans for not allowing him to dictate how they run their organization. They claim to be socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative, but they conveniently leave out the part that social Liberalism requires a lot of taxes to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control and other socially Liberal programs. Raising minimum wage is just as crippling to the economy as raising taxes or introducing more regulations. You are either one or the other but you can't be socially liberal while being fiscally conservative. Oh, and the opposite of "authoritarianism" is not "Libertarian"; it's anarchy. Unless you enjoy living in the hood, Libertarian is not what this country needs at all. They dangle pot legalization out there so the burned out, low information crowd gives the appearance of a growing organization. The party was only created in order to divide the Republican vote. Don't be fooled. Ironically, they are the first to call Republicans "RINO" for acting like Republicans instead of Libertarians."

And then there's all the conspiritards saying that Haugh (who is a friend of mine, BTW) is secretly being paid for by Democratic interests. Oh, if only!

Edit: My Ra, they just won't stop! "A vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat."

Especially this paperpushermj guy: "I am a Conservative and as much as I dislike the Entrenched Republican Establishment I at least believe they will listen to My concerns and be Influenced."

[Travis Retriever]

A lot of the comments here: http://washingtonexaminer.com/this-libertarian-pizza-deliverer-could-cost-republicans-the-senate/article/2549393/comments#disqus_thread

"This up coming election is a MUST WIN" Funny how I hear that EVERY election...

"Then you have the Libertarians. A party founded by a socialist Democrat, David Nolan, who was mad at the College Republicans for not allowing him to dictate how they run their organization. They claim to be socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative, but they conveniently leave out the part that social Liberalism requires a lot of taxes to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control and other socially Liberal programs. Raising minimum wage is just as crippling to the economy as raising taxes or introducing more regulations. You are either one or the other but you can't be socially liberal while being fiscally conservative. Oh, and the opposite of "authoritarianism" is not "Libertarian"; it's anarchy. Unless you enjoy living in the hood, Libertarian is not what this country needs at all. They dangle pot legalization out there so the burned out, low information crowd gives the appearance of a growing organization. The party was only created in order to divide the Republican vote. Don't be fooled. Ironically, they are the first to call Republicans "RINO" for acting like Republicans instead of Libertarians."

And then there's all the conspiritards saying that Haugh (who is a friend of mine, BTW) is secretly being paid for by Democratic interests. Oh, if only!

Edit: My Ra, they just won't stop! "A vote for a Libertarian is a vote for a Democrat."

Especially this paperpushermj guy: "I am a Conservative and as much as I dislike the Entrenched Republican Establishment I at least believe they will listen to My concerns and be Influenced."

I've said it once, I'll say it again--let it NEVER be said that libertarians are the only the ones with the most conspiracy mongers.

EDIT: Since I *DO* have an account on disquis, I went and up-voted all your comments, and posted your videos on whether republicans are for smaller government and the one about Bush's so called "Tax Cuts." Along with the thread you posted about the guy pulling votes equally from democrats and republicans. Though it still needs to be approved, sadly.   I'm not a fan of the electoral process (I side with folks like Cantwell on this), however, I figured you deserved the upvotes if only for calling bullshit on the false political dichotomy and on the "republicans are for smaller government" bullshit being hashed out by the idiots in the comments.

[Travis Retriever]

"The GOP never had them. They were founded as a Big Government leftist party and they have never changed.

Incidentally, the founders would be considered "right wing extremists" by both parties today. The founders were correct and gave us a government that was workable, but only when the people are moral and control themselves. That is the reason we are at the pass we find ourselves at."--Quartermaster

Actually, they were leftist by their own standards up until the early 20th century.  And really? The right has NEVER been synonymous with freedom.  Ever.  So fail for bogosity and contradicting yourself.  Someone needs to show this guy a Nolan chart.  The right is conservatives/republicans and left is liberals/democrats and the *top* is libertarians--the small or even no government folks.  Note how it's not on either the right OR the left.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]RInpJvT58aY[/yt]
Well, gee, when policemen can rape children (see: the study from ReasonTV Dave showed me on children in Juvee getting raped by the guards, etc), murder innocents and so on without getting a single bit of justice (and no, a paid vacation is NOT justice) then yes, yes it is a police state.  Sorry, but the entire argument just boils down to if I said, "I'm not fat! See the guys on My 600 Pound Life? THAT'S fat!" Yeah, less fat than that is still fat, sorry.  And less totalitarian than North Korea or whereever is STILL Totalitarian, Steve.
/sigh
Also fail is a religious skeptic friend of mine (not on this board) who suggested this guy on the grounds that I'd like him....I wasn't sure if he was trolling/messing with me...but yeah, I'd probably like this Steve bloke a tad better if he wasn't such a statheist.

[Travis Retriever]

"Depends on the results of the particular semantic argument minarchists and anarchists get into whenever they try to pin down what government is."--Shane Killian, comments of this video [yt]xsWgEqXfUXA[/yt] (To be fair, the rest of the comment was rather win.)

Government is an institution of the initiation of force.  That is an objective, descriptive fact.  When has it ever been anything else?  To say otherwise is to conflate murder and self defense which is grossly disingenuous (or at least very annoying and very imprecise language).

As for minarchy, I will never understand why so many minarchists hold up the USA's early years as an 'ideal' size of government.  The USA is proof that the whole idea of government is a dead end.  Even when you have a constitution that is as clear as fucking crystal about the limitations of government, you still can't stop it from growing. (Whiskey Rebellion anyone?)
I'm sorry but we really need to start thinking of better ways to solve problems than "Give a bunch of narcicistic sociopaths power and cross our fingers they don't abuse it."

And even if "a little bit of government" (often just police, courts and military) wasn't the definition of minarchy, don't pretend minarchists who defend govco aren't a thing.  They are.  I've seen Stef argue/debate with one of them and I doubt that guy's the only one--

[yt]2gK2xB9F9Ag[/yt]

PS: Yes, I'm a pedantic and anal retentive prick I know. @_@

[MrBogosity]

Government is an institution of the initiation of force.  That is an objective, descriptive fact.

There are many people who disagree. If I take our government as it is and remove all initiations of force--i.e., the only force it uses is for defense and justice, it's paid for voluntarily with donations, service fees, etc., and people are free to set up competing solutions, is what I have still a government? An-caps would say no, but in my experience almost everyone else would say it was.

That's just an argument I'm not interested in having. Eliminate the initiation of force; that's what I care about. After that, you can call it whatever you want.

[Travis Retriever]

There are many people who disagree. If I take our government as it is and remove all initiations of force--i.e., the only force it uses is for defense and justice, it's paid for voluntarily with donations, service fees, etc., and people are free to set up competing solutions, is what I have still a government? An-caps would say no, but in my experience almost everyone else would say it was.

That's just an argument I'm not interested in having. Eliminate the initiation of force; that's what I care about. After that, you can call it whatever you want.

So D notes that the last line of the second paragraph "is an argument from popularity.  If everyone else decided jumping off a cliff isn't suicide, does that make it true?" I find I'm too burned out to care*. XD Overall, good point and fair enough. Especially considering how many people think of government as just another institution like churches and businesses. To an extent I agree that the usage of a phrase or word does dictate meaning. (As long as it's not a game of the words mean whatever I want for whatever purpose I want.  E.g. "Atheism means you hate God!/eat babies!/are a Communist!"  Or some anarcho communists who say, "Force is subjective, ergo your definition is wrong!"--if it's subjective/opinion, how does the validity even enter into it?)

*Weight training--when you overdo it, it can really stress the nervous system. @.@ It's like I've had too much coffee.  Hence why I'm taking a week long break from it.

[Travis Retriever]

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/15-things-that-made-arnold-schwarzenegger-great.html
So after reading as much of this as I could stomach, I was thinking a number of things...for one, I'll never understand why so many people look up to him.  I mean, come on, he's also a politician...last I checked, that knocks him down a few pegs as far as admirability goes...It just strikes me as cult of personality bollocks. The stuff about him being generous and charming makes sense--politicians always are that way to their cronies...

[Lord T Hawkeye]

There are many people who disagree. If I take our government as it is and remove all initiations of force--i.e., the only force it uses is for defense and justice, it's paid for voluntarily with donations, service fees, etc., and people are free to set up competing solutions, is what I have still a government? An-caps would say no, but in my experience almost everyone else would say it was.

That's just an argument I'm not interested in having. Eliminate the initiation of force; that's what I care about. After that, you can call it whatever you want.

As Larken Rose said "If you can't threaten people who disagree with your plan, what do you do?  Ask them nicely?  If that's all you can do, then you're not a government. Anyone could do that."

[MrBogosity]

As Larken Rose said "If you can't threaten people who disagree with your plan, what do you do?  Ask them nicely?  If that's all you can do, then you're not a government. Anyone could do that."

And I've said before, I am an anarchist by the definition you gave:

[yt]pSTi2uGwsQM[/yt]

But again, not everyone uses the word "government" in the same way. Lots of voluntary organizations have what they call "government," which is the leaders setting the rules for the organization and what's going to happen. It's not like they pretend to be able to throw you in jail or anything.

[evensgrey]

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/15-things-that-made-arnold-schwarzenegger-great.html
So after reading as much of this as I could stomach, I was thinking a number of things...for one, I'll never understand why so many people look up to him.  I mean, come on, he's also a politician...last I checked, that knocks him down a few pegs as far as admirability goes...It just strikes me as cult of personality bollocks. The stuff about him being generous and charming makes sense--politicians always are that way to their cronies...

Unfortunately, I couldn't read it (it's throwing internal server errors at me at this time).

There is one thing that makes him actually pretty good, though.  All the stuff you actually see him doing?  That's really just his hobbies.  He was rich from his early business ventures long before anyone outside of serious bodybuilders had ever heard of him.

Yes, one of the all-time great action movie stars made all of those films as what amounts to a hobby.  Why else would he choose to walk away from almost all possible sequels?  He's made a total of three sequels in his whole career, and really dislikes at least one of those. (Conan the Destroyer was not originally supposed to be like that.  It's a perfectly good fantasy adventure movie, but it was supposed to be an underlying theme about some abstract concept, like the original had.)

Edit:  OK, I just checked his filmography, so I'll make that four sequels.  I'm not going to count The Expendables 2 because he wasn't in the original, and I'm not going to count Terminator: Genesis because that's a reboot instead of a sequel.