Fail Quotes

[Ibrahim90]

even though in real life (which I'm sure is a parallel world to whoever made this), The tea party people weren't particularly involved, and in the proposed restructuring, the CEOs in fact offered to reduce their income (or whatever is equivalent here). Oh, and the Labor union in question in effect refused the restructuring.

seriously, looking at pictures like this make me want to give up on humanity.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh look, it's Pat Condell with more typical "Palestine is full of savages and Israel is completely innocent" tripe, even going as far as to call Hamas "Nazis."

[yt]sNNhG0zDtA8[/yt]

[MrBogosity]

Oh look, it's Pat Condell with more typical "Palestine is full of savages and Israel is completely innocent" tripe, even going as far as to call Hamas "Nazis."

It may be fair to call Hamas "Nazis"; that doesn't mean that Netanyahu isn't Stalin.

[evensgrey]

It may be fair to call Hamas "Nazis"; that doesn't mean that Netanyahu isn't Stalin.

If there's any group currently operating that it's fair to call Nazis, it's probably Hamas (given their stated goal of destroying Israel for having the effrontery to exist).

I'm not so sure about comparing Netanyahu to Stalin.  He doesn't seem to have the sheer brutal stupidity of Stalin.  Stalin, for instance, would have long since committed genocide to end the matter.  (Come to think of it, Hamas manages to be pretty similar to the Bolsheviks in some ways as well, which would have left Nazi propagandists tied into knots of confusion.)  Netanyahu might be closed to Andrew Jackson (who forcibly removed the Cherokee in open defiance of US law).

[Ibrahim90]

Oh look, it's Pat Condell with more typical "Palestine is full of savages and Israel is completely innocent" tripe, even going as far as to call Hamas "Nazis."

[yt]sNNhG0zDtA8[/yt]

meh, he's a jackass. I'd ignore him. In fact, I'd ingore anyone who is one-sided on the issue, and say that both sides have made mistakes, and done things that have only left both sides in the shitter politically speaking, and on the Palestinian side economically and socially.

As to Hamas? well, I'd go with what evensgrey said: a mix of Nazi and Bolshevik, adding that it comes with a thin veneer of religion. And I would agree about Netenyahu: a Jewish Andrew Jackson.

though there is a really dumb postscript to the whole affair: when we last had elections, 44% of the people voted for Hamas (EDIT: 56% in Gaza city): luckily, the authorities in the west bank prevented Hamas from gaining control there, but Hamas seized control in Gaza. So now, we're stuck in a situation we brought on ourselves: Gaza is being pummeled to dust by the Israelis, and the West bankers are unable to do much about it. doesn't help that we have this weak-ass git for "president". why else did so many vote Hamas?

[MrBogosity]

Netanyahu might be closed to Andrew Jackson (who forcibly removed the Cherokee in open defiance of US law).

Jackson didn't keep bombing the Cherokee once they were on the reservation.

[MrBogosity]

doesn't help that we have this weak-ass git for "president". why else did so many vote Hamas?

Let me guess: they were seen as the lesser of two evils, right?

[Ibrahim90]

Let me guess: they were seen as the lesser of two evils, right?

that's what it comes down to, though I must add that there's more to it.

I mean, let's boil down the choices, by what happens on the ground.

you have the corruption, the stupidity, etc, associated with Fatah, from when it was under Yassir Arafat's control. That and the lack of economic development (the average Palestinian in the west bank makes $1,500-$3,000 a year)...And that to a lot of us, Mahmoud Abbas is too weak, too unassertive. Hell, the only thing I like about him is that at least he is willing to talk (though he can't seem to assert himself), and the rockets aren't falling on Hebron or the west Bank.

or you have Hamas, who I must mention have welfare programs (education, health, food) that Hamas privately runs, which Fatah doesn't provide. Or the fact that they are more into spending on Schools (a favorite for us Palestinians: seriously build a big fucking Uni in the middle of a Palestinian town, and they'll worship you before you could finish the announcement), hospitals, etc. And of course, they make you swear allegiance to them in order to use their stuff*. And unlike the US or Europe, when they provide welfare, they really provide it. dollar for dollar, they're probably way more efficient than anything in Europe or the Americas.

so with all that, if you were a typical Palestinian, who would you vote for? the git and his cronies, who can't get shit done but won't try to get you killed, or the cunts who want to bring about an Islamic state in buckets of your own people's blood (in a traditionally multireligious region), but who do get shit done?


*we take oaths very seriously over there. Partly religion, partly the sense of honor. So guess who these people will vote for?

[evensgrey]

Jackson didn't keep bombing the Cherokee once they were on the reservation.

At the risk of completely breaking an already stretched analogy, I think the situation is closer to the pre-relocation situation.   IIRC, the Israeli government has taken the position that the Palestinians don't need to form a state, because they've already got one, that state being Jordan (with the clear implication that they should all go there if they don't like conditions where they are).  I don't know of anyone else who agrees with this claim, certainly not the Palestinians or the Jordanians, but that's a position that they have taken (at one time at least, who can keep track of what positions a government on the other side of the world is taking?).

[MrBogosity]

At the risk of completely breaking an already stretched analogy, I think the situation is closer to the pre-relocation situation.

My point is, they've ALREADY been relocated. They were relocated so that the nation of Israel could be reformed, in a forced exodus that makes the Trail of Tears look like a Macy's parade.

[AnCap Dave]

If I had a dollar for every time some statist dunce blamed capitalism on everything, I'd be a fat filmmaker.

"If we were to drop the government today, I can only see things getting worse in the future. Capitalism is the crisis, we're in a situation where money trickles continuously up and not down. An example why it should be Communism and not Anarcho-Capitalism that we aim for. A strong example for this would be Walmart, they don't allow unions, they pay their worker's below a living wage, and they cost the American government $1.5 billion+ (See: http://underthemountainbunker.com/2012/02/25/walmart-costs-taxpayers-1557000000-the-conservative-circle-of-life/). Now it should be time for the government to step in and say enough is enough on this, however they've continuously allowed the workers to get trampled on, now if we remove the government completely what would happen to this situation? Walmart would be allowed to fire anybody for any reason, they could pay the workers whatever wage possible because hey, who's going to enforce minimum wage laws? Now you could argue others would set up shops to compete, however that would do nothing, Walmarts prices are already low, and if they cut their worker's pay it could get even lower, it's already been shown that when a Walmart comes in, it's terrible for the local economy as all the small shops end up having to close, as they cannot compete. I could continue, but I'll let you respond first.

> Don't give corporations money.
> Thousands of jobs lost.
>"Don't worry, lower taxes, get rid of the minimum wage, and cut down on regulations! The market is just repressed!"
> Healthcare prices rise due to government not funding it.
> The gap between the rich and the poor rises even more.
> The roads become unusable.
> "It'll get better, Hayek said-"
> The homeless numbers increase.
> All non-psychopathic industries go bust due to not being able to compete with prices for a fair wage.
> Nobody can start a business because the richest own everything.
> Nobody can demand more money because there's such a high amount of unemployment, you'll be instantly replaced.
> Privatized police only defend the corporations, because that's who pays their wage.

Free Market."

Hoooooo boy that shit is just laughable.

[VectorM]

So, Walmart does voluntary transactions with people, yet it's their fault when the government FORCES people to pay for stuff?

That's like me saying that women driving cars in Saudi Arabia is wrong, because the government has to spend more money to persecute them. DOWN WITH WOMEN'S RIGHTS!

[AnCap Dave]

Oh this shit went from gold to platinum:
"Even though I'm no fan of the USSR and it was far from becoming fully Communist, would you like me to show you how much economic progress they made under Stalin at the same time? Or would you like me to link the drop in life expectancy they had when the USSR collapsed? Or would you like me to show you that fridges made in East Berlin had a life expectancy of at least 20 years?

Capitalism is poison, if you can truly say a system is fixed when exploitation is what keeps it alive, you're clearly deluding yourself."

HAHAHAHA!

[MrBogosity]

we're in a situation where money trickles continuously up and not down. An example why it should be Communism and not Anarcho-Capitalism that we aim for.

Right, 'cause that NEVER happened with Communism...

A strong example for this would be Walmart, they don't allow unions, they pay their worker's below a living wage,

Average Walmart wage: $12.14/hour.

and they cost the American government $1.5 billion+

Statists always have a funny way of saying things like "The government wastes $1.5 billion."

now if we remove the government completely what would happen to this situation?

Better question: what happens if we remove Walmart completely from this situation? How much better off will those workers be then?

> Healthcare prices rise due to government not funding it.

Right, because they've just been dropping like a stone over the last 45 years of government funding...

Hoooooo boy that shit is just laughable.

Scary, you mean. I think this is a good argument for this person being locked up before he becomes a danger to others. Someone give him a psychopath test, see where he scores.

[AnCap Dave]

Oh man, this guy is just too much.

"Starvation or wage slavery isn't a voluntary exchange, it's a threat."

He's obviously referring to capitalism. The hilarity of this is that he thinks America is a fully capitalist society. What's also funny is that we constantly hear how America is too fat. If capitalism causes starvation, and America is too fat, then clearly that argument is full of shit.

So here is his answer to my retort about starvation being complete shit:
"Because Capitalism needs to have very rich and very poor to function. In India thousands of kids die every day from malnutrition, yet they let millions of tons of grain rot. [ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/09/201099203726584604.html ] There's clearly enough food to go around world wide, yet America has eating competitions while people starve to death."

Also, the Soviet Union is apparently Happy Funsville:
"Have you honestly never spoken to anybody who lived, or had family in the Soviet Union? I've spoken to a couple of Lithuanians, and Russians about it, and all of their family agreed things were better in Soviet Times. These are people who LIVED in the Soviet Union."