Fail Quotes

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

[yt]K0LLaybEuzA[/yt]

Just...fucking wow.

Talk about heavy duty propaganda.

Ya, ragefit when I first saw that.

[AnCap Dave]

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

Are they that stupid?

[tnu]

[yt]K0LLaybEuzA[/yt]

Just...fucking wow.

Talk about heavy duty propaganda.

The comments are evenw orse.

If this really happened...I think I'd survive maybe 5 minutes. I'd spend it under my bed or in a closet or something though.

Everyone would be dead... I'm sure of it..

Nighthawk8787 9 hours ago

Wouldn't every city be left in ruins the day after if all crime was legal? Every pyromaniac and vandalizer would be going from building to building setting off explosives and catching neighbors houses on fire for fun.

think of all the RAPE BABIES

I think this has the potential to be amazing. The villains aren't monsters, or psychos, or anything like that. They are normal people given free rein to do whatever they wish, with no threat of punishment.

I just tried watching the trailor but I had to sotp as soon as it said "Unemployment is at %1" Eh??

[BlameThe1st]

[yt]K0LLaybEuzA[/yt]

Just...fucking wow.

Talk about heavy duty propaganda.

I'm assuming this is propaganda against libertarianism/anarchism, which is under the assumption that libertarians/anarchists want to eliminate all laws/government, and that the result would be chaos.

Even if that were the case, this trailer sends a conflicting message in the opening when it talks about how all crime and unemployment has been eliminated and everyone is happy because they're allowed to maim and kill and go wild for one day. I'm sorry, but what's the downside to that, other than the obvious day of chaos? If the result is utopia, aside from one day of hell, how is this an argument against their strawman libertarianism/anarchism?

But if you all think THAT's fail, check out this review I discovered, which claims the movie supports racism/white supremacy: http://racismws.com/2013/04/13/is-the-purge-movie-a-rallying-cry-for-white-america/

This trailer shows a black man who is a target of a lynch mob. That seems to be an argument AGAINST racism/white supremacy, not for it!

What is with the social justice crowd seriously lacking critical thinking?

[dallen68]

I find it interesting that the link that's supposed to be tying this movie to racism doesn't actually talk about racism in this movie at all. It talks about racism in movies in general, has a screenshot from this movie, some really bad grammar, and a rant. But nothing about this movie.

[Travis Retriever]

[yt]K0LLaybEuzA[/yt]

Just...fucking wow.

Talk about heavy duty propaganda.

*chortle* Meanwhile, I had to troll the comments and post spoilers on multiple postings of that video.

[Lord T Hawkeye]

You know what this really is though?  It's a sign that we're winning, because they now see us as a threat.  As Larken Rose said, it just reeks of desperation.

[VectorM]

So D watched the entire thing (so sorry for his pain. ) and he verified the 'asspie' remark.  And it seems D also found out (from the video I presume) that this MundaneMatt guy is unemployed.  Can you say "Jealous Rage"?

Heh, from his video on Let's Plays, I got to the conclusion, that he is a petty emotional fuckwit who simply doesn't like Let's Players (or at least some of them) on a personal level, so he defends complete garbage out of spite.

If this is true, then it makes sense. "If I can't be well off, nobody else can" is one of the most petty, idiotic mentalities out there. I feel no remorse for this person, if he is indeed jobless.

[Travis Retriever]

I got a bombshell of a fail:

First, you need to remember that America was largely founded on the idea that an industrial society is best. Just read The Federalist Papers to check. I care more about empirical data than these economists false religions, and the empirical and historical data suggests that Hamiltonian economics and Henry Clay's American School are the only economic systems worth following. This free trade that is championed by both the Marxists and the Austrians has nothing to show for it but urban decay.

--From the comments of this video (Emphasis added by me)

[dallen68]

I got a bombshell of a fail:
--From the comments of this video (Emphasis added by me)

Actually, you probably got more fail here than you realize. Firstly, when America was founded, the industrial revolution had not happened yet; therefore the it couldn't have been founded on the idea an industrial society is best. Maybe a mercantile society, but not an industrial one. Secondly, Hamiltonian economics, and the subsequent Henry Clay school are not about free markets. You know those subsidies broke banks get? Hamilton invented that. (His first two reports are about assuming national and stated debts to run the government, and establishing a bank). Free trade that's championed by the Marxists? WTF?

[tnu]

[yt]LMQvEZLQ2BA[/yt]


Oh and from somewhere else.

You guys do realize that the Romney/Ryan budget and the Obama budget have extraordinarily huge differences right?

[Skm1091]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-california-minimum-wage-20130530,0,4608175.story

These politicians really want to make my states economy worse, don't they?

[tnu]

Oh this is good! I got this gem form oe of our firendly neighborhood statists Sparklig Fairy Dust.

What's your stance on monopolies? Without government, there's no feasible way to prevent massive companies from dominating a market, and therefore the entire populace. You can't say that the "free market" would solve the problem, because monopolies are part of the natural evolution of a truly free market - if the product of the company in question is vital (water, food, medical supplies, etc) it's not like you can just stop buying or use another company.

I'm thinking of puting a modified version of Hawkeye's answer as a response. would go something like this.

First of all, the government IS a monopoly so nice special pleading there.
Second of all, can you name me ONE monopoly in history that occurred without government support?  The bar having a complete monopoly on lawyers?  Government supported.  The AMA having a complete monopoly on doctor licensing?  Government supported.  The FED has a complete monopoly on currency?  Government supported. What about the laws in New York City that actively PROHIBIT people from starting taxi services? In a similar but more subtle vein , the requirements for licenses and permits to operate a pickup or delivery service so that, for example, If I wanted to start a taxi service or delivery service with my personal truck to make some extra, WAIT! I have to get an expensive license and permit! But OK I pay up the ass to get that but I should be able ot make back the money with my service. WRONG! I have to now spend even MORE money to modify my vehicle, which, has been proven to be perfectly safe, effective, and has worked fine since the day I bought it. But do you think that is going to prevent the state from forcibly shutting down my operations if I don't make sure every last item specified in their books is met and spend obscene amounts of money, probably going in to debt in the process, to do so? Absolutely not! They will charge me yet MORE money in fines and fees, forcibly terminate my operations entirely, or throw me in a cage. This is yet ANOTHER illustration of how the government not only does not prevent monopolies and oligopolies, but actually enforces them! And lo and behold, their services suck and their prices are highway robbery!
Gee, the state REALLY seems to care about protecting you from monopolies doesn't it?
But let's say it completely is possible for monopolies to form in a free market.  Okay, so what's the worst they could do?  Charge outlandish prices for their products and that would be bad?  Well riddle me this: What if they not only charged outlandish prices but could also FORCE you to pay for them?  What if they could force you to pay even if you didn't use their services at all?
Are you starting to see how "blow up your house to prevent an infestation" level illogical this argument really is?  I can go in to more detail if you want. I've heard EVERY version of this argument there is. Predatory pricing, collusion, buying up the competition, none of which stand up to rational analysis.

thoughts? criticsms? suggestions?

[Travis Retriever]

thoughts? criticsms? suggestions?

Separate it into block paragraphs.  It's kinda hard to read otherwise.  For example:

First of all, the government IS a monopoly so nice special pleading there.

Second of all, can you name me ONE monopoly in history that occurred without government support?  The bar having a complete monopoly on lawyers?  Government supported.  The AMA having a complete monopoly on doctor licensing?  Government supported.  The FED has a complete monopoly on currency?  Government supported.

What about the laws in New York City that actively PROHIBIT people from starting taxi services? In a similar but more subtle vein , the requirements for licenses and permits to operate a pickup or delivery service so that, for example, If I wanted to start a taxi service or delivery service with my personal truck to make some extra, WAIT! I have to get an expensive license and permit! But OK I pay up the ass to get that but I should be able ot make back the money with my service. WRONG! I have to now spend even MORE money to modify my vehicle, which, has been proven to be perfectly safe, effective, and has worked fine since the day I bought it. But do you think that is going to prevent the state from forcibly shutting down my operations if I don't make sure every last item specified in their books is met and spend obscene amounts of money, probably going in to debt in the process, to do so? Absolutely not! They will charge me yet MORE money in fines and fees, forcibly terminate my operations entirely, or throw me in a cage. This is yet ANOTHER illustration of how the government not only does not prevent monopolies and oligopolies, but actually enforces them! And lo and behold, their services suck and their prices are highway robbery!
Gee, the state REALLY seems to care about protecting you from monopolies doesn't it?

But let's say it completely is possible for monopolies to form in a free market.  Okay, so what's the worst they could do?  Charge outlandish prices for their products and that would be bad?  Well riddle me this: What if they not only charged outlandish prices but could also FORCE you to pay for them?  What if they could force you to pay even if you didn't use their services at all?
Are you starting to see how "blow up your house to prevent an infestation" level illogical this argument really is?  I can go in to more detail if you want. I've heard EVERY version of this argument there is. Predatory pricing, collusion, buying up the competition, none of which stand up to rational analysis.