Fail Quotes

[MrBogosity]

While I'm at it, I'd also like to submit Ephesians 6:5-8:

"⁵ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. ⁶ Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. ⁷ Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, ⁸ because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free." --New International Version

EDIT: Also Colossians 3:22 and Titus 2:9:

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord."

"Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them."

[MrBogosity]

And 1 Peter 2:13-14, 18:

"¹³ Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, ¹⁴ or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right."

"¹⁸ Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."

[Travis Retriever]

Thanks for the related submission, Shane.   Those verses are DEFINITELY worthy of being here.  You get a cluon for that!

I would also add that Lord T Hawkeye said that there seemed to be a contradiction, "what about the communist, anti christian governments?"
Yet, that verse was written while under such a government!  Also, the verse is general.  As far as the bible is concerned, ALL existing governments, including those claiming to be for other religions or even the anti-religious communist governments, exist because Yahweh himself appointed them, and are thus legitimate on that basis alone.
So what is this nonsense of, "This nation was founded on Christian Values" again?  According to the Bible, the colonists rebelled against their governing body (Great Britain) and were therefore going against God.  Then again, many of the founders were Deists too.

Also, so much for the bible (the work which Christians consider the word of God--so no punishing the messenger here ) being anti-slavery.
I have a conservative friend who goes on about the Quakers being the first abolitionists, yet they clearly were heritical.
Funny how he doesn't mention the Individualist Anarchists during the period of 1812-1860, who not only predated the Spanish Anarchists he loves to hold up (along with the Anarcho-communist my history prof loves holding up), but were also some of the biggest abolitionists of slavery of their time!
Just saying.

[MrBogosity]

Also, so much for the bible (the work which Christians consider the word of God--so no punishing the messenger here ) being anti-slavery.

Yeah, they can't even weasel out of it by claiming that the Old Testament was made obsolete by Jesus (although it wasn't), since this is from the New Testament.

[Travis Retriever]

Yeah, they can't even weasel out of it by claiming that the Old Testament was made obsolete by Jesus (although it wasn't), since this is from the New Testament.

Oh, yeah.  I double checked to make sure.  All of the verses you posted are from the New Testament.

[Travis Retriever]

All of the following are from the review section of this book:  http://mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P552.aspx

"Why is this hypocrit selling the book? I guess he wants to exploit the government monopoly while he still can." --John V
1.  Learn to use spell-check, you idiot.
2.  Screen-shot of a copyright symbol in or on the book, or stfu.  Just because I sell a product doesn't mean I have the government granting me a monopoly on that product.

"why charge for the book?" --Writers & Inventors
Addressed above.

"attribution and ownership are indeed different concepts; but, ultimately there can be no equity in a society without objective, transparent relationships between rights and responsibilities. this book does not explain what is wrong with property as a bundle of rights and yet without royals issuing letters patent, the US has created more jobs than any other nation in history. not because people had a street-corner-performer-donation mentality but because fences make good neighbors. second, there is no empirical evidence to support the arguments. you can always offer your "property" for free: alas, this book is not free. it ain't even "steal this book" free! it is bewildering to think that the authors ignore key debates leading to the original Patent Act & the fact the Founders recognized only two forms of employment in the Constitution - Writers & Inventors. why? the States had ALREADY begun to issue patents (originalists who ignore the 13th, 14th & 15th Amend- conveniently ignore).  " --Writers & Inventors
Let's see...red herrings, broken window fallacy, alluding to evidence, while not providing any, and more red herrings...Pathetic.

"BS" --Rand_Ayn
NO U!

"'All credit goes to the authors here—Michele Boldrin and David Levine of the Washington University in St. Louis—who have undertaken this daring and challenging area of research. They are exemplars of intellectual pioneers. If they have an effect in changing the way people think on this subject, civilization will owe them a huge debt.'
that is really a funny sentence! by their argument- why should i pay for that? why shouldn't i release the book under my name? WHY would THEY want/need/deserve credit for this book? they are just keeping their hardwork from the good of society (or so they would argue!)

shattering myths? until food and shelter are relatively abundant and free to all why should anyone else's work not be compensated- art, literature and music as prime examples? if it is for exposure and the good of society shouldn't all things be free as well? I ask anyone to reflect upon not being given their pay check for working. This is more demeaning to the arts of a society than "monopolizing" of thoughts. As soon as copyright gets abolished I look forward to Corporations capitalizing off the backs of anyone foolish to believe copyright doesn't protect the holders. Copyright is in the US Constitution so Amend that if you feel in unnecessary.  " --Rand_Ayn
1.  *sighs* Addressed above...Sheesh. Because if I'm against the government granting a monopoly on production, I MUST be for that thing fully socialized instead, right? Puh-lease!
2.  Simply signing your name on something =/= getting a government monopoly on production.  Nice strawman, though.
3.  Weak/false analogy.  He was talking about information, NOT scarce physical resources.  Again, nice strawman.
4.  Because Creative Commons doesn't exist, right?  Idiot.  Also, Corporations ARE a creation of government, complete with state-granted with anti-free market privileges like:  Unlimited Debt Shield, Immunity, etc.  Epic fail, dude.
5.  "Copyright is in the US Constitution so Amend if you feel in unnecessary."  Grammar/spelling fail.  Also, so was slavery for a while.  What's your point?
I'm honestly considering making appeal to constitution an unnamed logical fallacy.  I know it's technically already an appeal to authority, but I think it deserves its own name.

[VectorM]

Love how the last guy didnt read the book at all.

[Travis Retriever]

"I show in the first place that the state of men without civil society (which state may be called the state of nature) is nothing but a war of all against all; and that in that war, all have a right to all things." -- http://www.youtube.com/user/clownporn1 , blatantly nabbed from that idiot Thomas Hobbes

"If you were to destroy in mankind the belief in immortality, not only love but every living force maintaining the life of the world would at once be dried up. Moreover, nothing then would be immoral; everything would be lawful, even cannibalism. " -- http://www.youtube.com/user/clownporn1 , failing basic economics and math.

"Men would never be superstitious, if they could govern all their circumstances by set rules, or if they were always favoured by fortune: but being frequently driven into straits where rules are useless, and being often kept fluctuating pitiably between hope and fear by the uncertainty of fortune's greedily coveted favours, they are consequently, for the most part, very prone to credulity." -- http://www.youtube.com/user/clownporn1 , failing physics, and showing us that he has never reasoned from first principles in his life.

[VectorM]

Oh, so you actually understood what he was trying to say? I thought it was just fancy gibberish he wrote to sound intelligent.

[MrBogosity]

http://www.slate.com/id/2287539/

"In the movie version of Atlas Shrugged, there is a scene in which Ayn Rand's libertarian heroes defy all odds, deploy some untold amount of private funding, and launch the fastest high-speed train in history over rails of experimental metal...That's in the fantasy world. In the real world, libertarians aren't cheering for high speed rail but rather trying to stop it from being built."

They REALLY don't get it, do they? This is how statism pollutes the mind. They just can't understand why someone would want a service run efficiently by private entrepreneurs who can only get the funding if they convince people to give it to them, but not want that same service run by a government who takes money by force and runs it extremely inefficiently to the point where it harms the local economy and even the environment.

[MrBogosity]

Another fail from the same article:

"Amtrak passengers pay more of the cost of their transportation than do drivers on the interstate. About 62 percent of Amtrak's operating expenses, according to the Department of Transportation, comes from fares. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the percentage of highway spending paid for by users—in the form of gas taxes and tolls—is headed below 50 percent."

Yeah, because drivers don't spend anything on fuel, oil changes, vehicle maintenance, etc., right?

[Travis Retriever]

From that article's title: "Why do conservatives hate trains so much?" --Emphasis added by me.
Shane, I'm surprised you of all people would miss that!
Gotta love it when nimrods conflate libertarianism with conversatism.

[MrBogosity]

Well, the copy was consistent about libertarians (at least in the part I quoted) and usually the headlines are written by someone else. I don't usually consider inconsistencies in the headline as anything else.

[Travis Retriever]

"@ashane77
I have the freedom to chose which company I work for.

Stef was born in Ireland the country (IRELAND the corporation)

Stef chose to move to Canada the country, (CANADA the corporation)

Considering the mess the Mick's have put themselves into, it looks like he made a good choice of his own free will and accord.

He could have chosen Zimbabwe but that may have conflicted with his own SELF INTEREST.

No one put a gun to his head.

You ask to live under the protection of a company.canUsee." --Darkhorse21x, on this video

Gotta love the Social Contract people talking about government like it's some kind of voluntary system.  Really, that's how you know you're dealing with a propaganda-bot.
And yeah, I understand posting this would probably violate Shane's rules on bigotry given part of his comment, but it's here for criticism, etc, so yeah.

[MrBogosity]

"A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a "double dip," a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

"The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble...But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more?" --Paul Krugman in 2002, clearly calling for a housing bubble

"If you read it in context, you'll see that I wasn't calling for a bubble — I was talking about the limits to the Fed's powers, saying that the only way Greenspan could achieve recovery would be if he were able to create a new bubble, which is NOT the same thing as saying that this was a good idea." --Krugman in 2010, clearly backpedalling. He was clearly NOT saying that a housing bubble would not be a good idea; he WAS clearly saying that his problem was he didn't think Greenspan could pull it off.

And then the big fail: "But did I call for low interest rates? Yes. In my view, that's not what the Fed did wrong. We needed better regulation to curb the bubble — not a policy that sacrificed output and employment in order to limit irrational exuberance. You can disagree if you like, but that doesn't make me someone who deliberately sought a bubble."

Noooo, you didn't deliberately seek a bubble, you just called for doing all of the things that create bubbles to begin with...