Fail Quotes

[Skm1091]

I am not kidding. There was this one guy on youtube, his account name is dv wfwefwe. I was debating him on Stefan Molyneux's video Gun Control: History, Philosophy and Ethics He called the NRA murderers while he supported Obama's drone strikes!

"Better to use drones than to send our soldiers into harm's way via open and declared War. Specially when such war (Iraq) was started by Bush/Chenney under false premises, betraying the American people and diminishing our credibility in the World's stage."  dv wfwefwe

He is  arguing that bombing people is not an act of open and declared war. Can you believe it?! So since germany never actually sent troops into Great Britain, and just bombed their cities and civilians, it is not an act of open and declared war?! I should also mention technically the war in iraq started with Clinton with the sanctions, that killed and estimated 200,000-500,000 children and the bombings in 1998. And those drone strikes he supports have killed 881 innocent civilians including 176 children. That is way more than Adam Lanza's body count. Can anyone see the hypocrisy here?

This comment of his said everything I needed to know about him. A lot of these "gun control" advocates are actually pro violence as long as the state does did and not themselves.

Special pleading, cowardly, murderous snakes. Fitting definition, no?

[MrBogosity]

He called the NRA murderers while he supported Obama's drone strikes!

Yeah, there are a lot of those around.

I should also mention technically the war in iraq started with Clinton with the sanctions, that killed and estimated 200,000-500,000 children and the bombings in 1998.

Actually, it started earlier than that with the Persian Gulf War under George H.W. Bush. Even after the war was over, the bombings and sanctions continued until Bush Jr. invaded in 2003.

[Altimadark]

I gave Himmelswalker a chance, I really did.

[yt]6lyunRYMenY[/yt]

So as you might expect, the discussion is over gun control. Started off discussing the correlation between a state's political bent and its rate of gun violence (spoiler alert: there is no correlation), and then Himmelswalker puts his two cents in. The discussion goes on longer than I care to quote (a lot of it is just him going in circles), so I'm just going to provide a snippet of Himmelswalker's own words:

My argument is that gun restrictions reduce the numbers of dead people extremely. Gun Control can not reduce violence. That the US is an violent place...has to do with the culture of individualism you have.

Although in Europe the crime rate is higher, the urbanization is stronger, its GDP is lower, social problems are deeper, more criminals are not in prison, it still has far less homicides thanks to gun control.

[Skm1091]

Does he support drone strikes like bozo I mentioned?

[MrBogosity]

I just HAD to preserve these comments from a Facebook conversation on gun control (names NOT changed because no one is innocent):

(Incidentally, the start of this thread was this link posted by David Gorski, which is also full of fail: http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/)

I think there's a big difference between the claim of trying to systemically disarm citizens as a way of violating their rights, which is what is being claim by those people who are currently invoking Hitler, and what Hitler actually did, which is systematically deprive one particular group of its rights...

Okay, so apparently, gun control doesn't count as gun control when it's only used against the Jews. (And just so everyone knows, Hitler only ended restrictions on gun ownership for members of the Nazi Party.)

...The measures taken before, during, and after Kristallnacht — and indeed until the invasion of Poland — were designed to encourage Jewish "emigration" and not to set the stage for extermination.

Wow. So Hitler didn't really want to exterminate the Jews, he just wanted them to leave.

Prompting this bit of win:

Well according to Andrew, that wasn't really "the holocaust" it was the: ask-them-politely-to-leave-ocaust.

Resulting in a bit of sadly characteristic bombast from Gorski:

Tim, you really don't know who you're dealing with here. I do. Andrew knows so much more about the Holocaust than you or Shame that I look forward to Andrew toying with you and your revisionist history.

Remember that: WE'RE the revisionists.

So then I point out:

Why did the Nazis never invade Switzerland? And don't give me that crap about the banks; the Nazis would have CONTROLLED the banks if they'd taken the country (and stopped the allies using the banks too, which they were). They could also have stopped the allies using Swiss roads to move machinery and troops around. And don't give me that crap about it being mountainous, either; there are LOTS of mountains in that area of Europe and it didn't stop them in other countries. Come on, what's the reason? We all know what it is, might as well admit it.

Which garnered this reply:

Ah, another canard! How fun. Actually, it was a number of reasons, not the least of which is indeed that invading would not have made much military sense given the mountainous nature of the country and the fact that the Swiss were not viewed as a threat.

Okay, so NOW we have the claim that Hitler didn't invade other countries that weren't a threat to him. What was that about revisionists again?

I then point out the disgusting behavior in the thread, in terms which I think are unnecessarily polite:

So, so far in this thread, it's been argued that:

* Hitler's gun control doesn't count because he only disarmed Jews.
* The Nazis just wanted the Jews to leave, not be exterminated.
* The Nazis left people alone who weren't a threat.

Am I suddenly on a board full of Holocaust deniers???

Resulting in this little exchange:

No, Shane, you only think you know the reason. You don't. And stop being a jerk.

Oh, it's "being a jerk" to point out your obvious bias and blind spot? And here I thought ad hominem attacks were something skeptics shouldn't do...

And what does Gorski do, as is so typical of him when he's cornered?

No, Shame, it's the way you invade threads and call me and my Facebook friends on this thread "Holocaust deniers" that makes you a jerk. Hypocrite.

Wow. Just wow.

I've said it before, I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it 'til it sinks in: statism poisons the mind just as much as any religion.

[AnCap Dave]

(names NOT changed because no one is innocent)

Thank you for that. I've always hated it when people post facebook conversations and cover up the names. If someone says something stupid, they should own up to it and face any criticism or humiliation that comes from it. The people you posted here in fail quotes are definitely among those who should be criticized and humiliated for their stupid comments.

[Ibrahim90]

well, you should have pointed out the following:

1-Hitler invaded lots of countries he did not see as a threat: Greece and Yugoslavia are the most famous examples, as were Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Norway.  Greece and Yogoslavia had no obvious long term (or short term) strategic purposes: these were invaded either because they (physically, not militarily) in the way of actual strategic goals (he wanted a broader front to assail the Allies with in 1940), or to cover Mussolini's incompetent ass.

to be specific:

1-Norway: could be used as staging ground for invasion of Germany. Also had heavy water plants, and direct land access to Sweden's iron.
2-Denmark: with Norway, it becomes vital, as it controls access to the Baltic sea, scuppering an Allied attack plan from that area. And again, Sweden's Iron.
3-Netherlands and Luxembourg: Hitler's generals required a broader front than in 1914, since the Allies already expected an attack from the normal Avenue (Belgium). There were strategic considerations of a long-term nature regarding trade with the UK, but these were minor in Hitler's eyes
4-Greece and Yugoslavia: someone had to cover Mussolini's ass....that one wasn't even remotely necessary, and was in fact seen as an unwelcome eventuality, seeing that it delayed Barbarossa by several crucial weeks.

now the countries Hitler didn't invade:

1-Sweden: Sweden, while remaining Neutral, did keep trade open with Germany, and was in fact willing to continue business exclusively with Germany. No threat, lots of advantage from the Iron trade, so no need to invade.
2-Switzerland: Hitler himself admitted this, but the fact of the matter is, Switzerland was too well defended. Everyone had/has a rifle and excellent military equipment and training, the country is mountainous, and in addition, the Swiss made the decision to turn many of the mountains along major routes into forts, with which to shell and shoot at Germans with (and with 1940's military tech, you couldn't just blow up a mountain like you would a fort). Any invasion--be it from Italy or Germany, and from any possible direction, was considered, and preparations made accordingly. Hitler was actually intimidated more by Switzerland, than he was the USSR. Imagine that--The land of chocolates and clocks was more intimidating to him that holy mother Russia and it's empire...that is a special level of intimidation.

[AnCap Dave]

In reality, you could simply look up the word "capitalism" on BigThink's channel and you're guaranteed to find a lot of fail quotes, but I'll post this one because it's pretty bad.

[yt]ZK-_fmY-ABk[/yt]

[Skm1091]

I responding to a Lulu Dechant on this article

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-obama-gun-control-20130116,0,3325027.story

I asked her about the hypocrisy of obama killing children with drone strikes. And him selling guns to the cartels. and this was her response

That's just stupid and for your sake I really hope you don't actually believe that Obama sold guns to Mexican cartels. Turn off the Fox Loons and start thinking for yourself, it's not too late.

This was my response to her.

What is stupid about my comment? It wasn't only fox news that reported it. Every major news outlet has stories on it. They were supposed to track the guns that they were selling to cartels in a sting operation and they screwed up and lost track of them. So you are Ok with his drone attacks on children? That says a lot about you, doesn't it?

Unbelievable isn't it?

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

[yt]Q2btKEnfuA4[/yt]
The AR 15 shot 70 people at the theater shooting? It jammed, you liar!

The rest of the shooting was done with a shotgun and a handgun.

[Skm1091]

This is a response I made to Dv Wfwewfe

Well pardon me grammer nazi. Yes I know why the war started. The assassination of Ferdinand, the alliances etc. Your ignoring the Treaty of Versailles, which put severe economic burdens on the german people. That paved the way for someone like hitler to take power. Seeing that result the US should have just stayed out of it. What the hell does fox news have to do with history? A gun slinging hillbilly is better than a murderer supporting, drone attack loving, hypocrite. You have to be a troll.

Then this was his response to me

You need to capitalize names Skimmer1091. Hitler, being a name, needs to be capitalized. You should know that well since you hillbilly right wing Nazi gun nuts have him as one of your greatest heroes. Now say it, Hail Hittler you nazi pig

Unbelievable he makes a big fuss over grammer and does not even make any arguments against the points I made.

Bellow is my response to him.

You think i'm writing an english paper or something? Name calling with absolutely no substance eh? YOU are more of the "nazi pig" seeing that your for bombing innocent people with drones. Now the allies were also guilty of this but at least I don't pick and choose sides or make excuses for one leader or another. And guess what. You are still are still a murderer supporting scumbag.

[AnCap Dave]

Not a big fan of elections in general, but this is definitely fail:
[yt]5iZl5LGornI[/yt]

[Skm1091]

This is from a private message to me from a jacquelineveronique on youtube

when did I ever say that I support drone strikes ? Still, Obama has killed less people than the one million Iraqis Bush killed

So since Clinton killed only 200,000-500,000 children with his sanctions against the Iraqis, she would give him a pass? Wow, just wow.

[VectorM]

Well then does she give mass shooters a pass? I mean, they almost never kill more than 10 people after all.

[Skm1091]

Well then does she give mass shooters a pass? I mean, they almost never kill more than 10 people after all.

Oh no, she is for gun control. So when an average maniac does it she goes nuts. But when her favorite politician does it she seems to give them a pass or make excuses. Special pleading, anyone? To her it seems that innocent civilians killed by Obama, or democratic politicians does not count, but when a republican does it, it is a travesty. I also asked her even if Obama's body count is not as high does still make it OK and if she would give Clinton a pass for killing 200,000-500,000 Iraqi children with his sanctions. After all 200,000 to 500,000 is still not a million, according to her argument. Then I went on about the NDAA, his increased numbers of medical marijuana clinic raids, keeping git-mo open, etc. If she still thinks Obama is any better, then she has shown me her true color.