Fail Quotes

[AnCap Dave]

[yt]g-dR_mc3LnI[/yt]

SEQUESTER?! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

[Skm1091]

aand, I see a problem right there: "U.S." wars. And since '68, which would leave out the big ones:  WWI, WWII, The Civil War, and so on. Very disingenuous.
Also, last I checked, U.S wars ain't the only ones.  How about the millions killed by the Nazis, or the hundreds of millions killed by communism? Oh, nvm, he does include WWI, WWII, but...wait...WHAT? not even a million deaths from WWII?     Um...because clearly the other people killed (e.g. by nazis) or the fact that we entered both WWI and WWII late clearly hadn't a single thing to do with THAT!
What a disingenious prick!
Hell, how about the 1/2 a million Iraqi Children killed by the Clinton Administration?  That alone would bump the numbers up to put guns below it, even WITH the bogus metrics he's using!
Or, if you expand it to govco in general, how about the 4+ million killed just by the FDA alone (Love you, Ruwart! :3) by denying/delaying lifesaving drugs?

Finally, all of this avoids the elephant in the room.  That govco was still there and HAD laws against these things (gun murders and /sigh yes, suicide too IIRC).  So, that means all the laws we have for them (20k+ last time Harry Browne checked and still climbing) are clearly not working...because if 20k laws didn't do it, 20k + 1 will! (as Harry Browne has said!)

Their response: Waaaaah! That doesn't count because they were not killed with guns and it was done by my favorite politician!!! WAAAAAAAAAAA!

[Ibrahim90]

[yt]g-dR_mc3LnI[/yt]

SEQUESTER?! WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

OMFG!! will someone think of the TJ Babies?! (skip to @ 6:47)

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]ngADzgxDIHk[/yt]

Aww.  How cute! She thinks she's smart. ^_^

[Travis Retriever]

Few things make me angrier than people who go on about how libertarians/anarchists/etc are "selfish heartless people" while blowing off things like, say, NDAA, Drone killings, or deaths caused by wait times from the NHS, etc because "it dun effect me, eye only go for issues that are close to home! hur dur!"/"If it dun effect me personally, it dun exist."

Yeah...*eye twitch*

[Travis Retriever]

"3) North Dakota isn't free because it bans abortion.

The biggest critique of this study is how North Dakota ranks as the freest state despite having the strictest restrictions against abortions. As the blurb to the Salon article sarcastically remarks: "Sorry, women! Your "freedoms" aren't as important as freedom from excessive taxation."

To be fair, libertarians are split when it comes to abortion. Some believe a woman's "bodily autonomy" includes her "right" to have an abortion, while other like myself rightfully believe that a woman's "right" to her body does not include the "right" to take the life of her unborn child. Some believe this is a federal issue, while others believe it should be left to the states. Despite this schism, most libertarians agree that abortions should not be government-funded.

But even if this wasn't a divisive issue among libertarians, and they all believed that "reproductive rights" do not cover abortion, so what? As I said before, a woman's "right" to her body ends where the life of another human being begins.

Sorry, but feminazis complaining about being denied their "right" to have an abortion is as heart-wrenching as slave owners whining about being denied their "right" to own slaves."--BlameThe1st: http://blamethe1st.deviantart.com/art/Freedom-In-The-50-States-P-O-Libtards-363185351

A shitstain from an otherwise very well written and sourced journal entry.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]ngADzgxDIHk[/yt]

Aww.  How cute! She thinks she's smart. ^_^

And while I'm at it, the video's description:

"The biggest problem I have with libertarians, is when you ask them whether they are willing to accept the extreme logical consequences of their position, they either deny it will happen, or deny they can accept it.

I have no problem with people who have no heart, I have a problem with people who deny their nature and belief.

This is a LOT like socialized healthcare. If you asked a socialist whether he's willing to make a whole country poor just for healthcare equality, you can reasonably expect many to say YES. But if you asked a libertarian whether he's willing to have some dead on streets as a result of not having socialized coverage or means, they are VERY reluctant to say "yes". They'll try to say "well, but the alternative is worse!"

Or , if you're anti-gun, pro-gun control, you should be willing to accept that some people are killed as a result of not being armed. Likewise, if you are pro-gun, anti-gun laws, you should be willing to accept that accidents happen which would not had the guns not been available or accessible.

Most common response : " But that'll never happen" or "What if I am willing". But what if you are willing, but unable. Sure, there may be tons of people "willing" to feed a starving person, but unable, would they steal to get it done, or respect private property and leave the person to die? They cannot do both."

TL;DR version:  Projection so hard it could be seen from the moon in 1080p and with studio quality sound.

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

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-to-win-a-gmo-debate-top-10-facts-why-gm-food-is-bad.html?page=1

[MrBogosity]

Just about everyone so far who's commented on a "BOGUS" graphic on the Bogosity Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/MrBogosity

[Ibrahim90]

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/how-to-win-a-gmo-debate-top-10-facts-why-gm-food-is-bad.html?page=1

10-the AAEM are known quacks: they are against anything even remotely linked with pollution (like vaccines--particularly ones with Mercury), and are in favor of the non-diagnostic BS called MCS. also, GMO's are not dangerous, or "unhealthy": no more than any other domesticated plant.

9-"contamination" of the gene pool is bogosity: genes are meant to be crossed and shared through sexual reproduction. nature takes care of the rest. if the traits are good, it will be selected in favor. if not, it will die out in the wild. if neutral, it will not dominate, but still remain within the population. either way, it isn't necessarily "forever". besides, the same BS is used by racial supremecists.

8-that's a good thing. you don't want your crops ruined for the year, do you? or would you rather risk starvation, especially in 3rd world countries? and what's with the whole Monsanto conspiracy BS? and besides, tolerance to Herbicide =/=greater toxicity. it's a non sequetur.

7-no such dangerous side effects have been demonstrated by any official peer reviewed sources, or any proper research. all research these people refer to has been debunked, rejected, or ignored by the mainstream.

6-I'd argue there is too much government oversight. and even if there wasn't, it's not as if the dangers wouldn't have been caught by now....we live in an age where things are overturned quickly--ideas and theorems especially.

5-No one uses agent Orange, its effects having been demonstrated in Vietnam. DDT is rarely used (and it's dangers are completely blown out of proportion--thanks LTH), and PCB's are illegal in most countries--including the US. if someone is using it, it is in spite of government. which tells you how well government works.

4-No, it isn't. these people get fired, because they're incompetent, there was a cut in the department, or both. no one is stopping them from spewing BS, as they're BS is freely available online and on TV (unfortunately).

3-repitition of points above. no, it doesn't harm the environment. the loss of Monarch butterflies has to do with pesticide use, and climate change, not with the plants themselves. and they're a pain in the ass anyways.

2-that is an outright lie. food production has generally increased. what these people are doing is looking at a few bad years, and blaming it on GMO's, forgetting that agriculture is an often unpredictable business in terms of yield, and has been since its invention. And Norman Borlaug's GM's (which involved monoculture rather than needles) have been credited with saving near a billion lives. (and yes, he endorsed GMO's).

1-and decreasing the total amount of food in the world, killing millions. congratulations, you are little better than Genghis Khan.


at the end, I leave you with the late Borlaug's opinion of these nutbars:

some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things

[Goaticus]

[Travis Retriever]

...
*brain explodes*

[AnCap Dave]

[Travis Retriever]

/sigh
So for those wondering why I posted the movie and questioned whether or not it was bullshit, t'was because my mom pushed me into watching it.
And just now, we had the following exchange:
"So what did you think of the movie?"
"I thought it was interesting."
"Do you deny the stuff in the movie"
"I dunno."
"Well, will you know when the floods come?"

Personally, I'm in favor of teaching other end of the world bullshit myself.
But seriously, the alarmists seriously need to STFU.
I'll take them all a LOT more seriously when:
1.  They stop making special exceptions for govco--it is the world's biggest polluter and by extension the biggest source of that shit.  Or at the very least, the one most responsible for it (gas subsidies?  road subsidies?  Never heard of those! And I doubt that's all. :3)
2.  The politics is removed from it, both in the science AND 'solutions'.
3.  When the people screaming the loudest about it start practicing what they preach.

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

http://clashdaily.com/2013/04/the-fool-says-there-is-no-god/

sigh.