Fail Quotes

[Anpanman]

*Sighs* from this pillock again:

[spoiler]



[/spoiler]

[MrBogosity]

"You could cut your spending all the way to zero and still not be able to balance the budget. You need to increase revenue AND cut spending." --Hairysteed, in the comments of this video.

Basic math fail!

[MrBogosity]

O. M. F. G!

[yt-43]9fzO_YhOYNQ[/yt-43]

[Travis Retriever]

[yt-43]9fzO_YhOYNQ[/yt-43]

AAAAAAAAAHHHH!!!  The stupid! IT BURNS! >_<*

[AnCap Dave]

O. M. F. G!

[yt-43]9fzO_YhOYNQ[/yt-43]

>mfw

[yt]juFZh92MUOY[/yt]

[AnCap Dave]

Cliffe Knechile. This fucking guy gets time every Sunday morning on ABC for his stupid show "Give Me an Answer" where he goes to college campuses and "debates" his religious views with people. Needless to say it is entirely filled with fail.

[yt]CDpst8SeYyc[/yt]

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I'm going to now explain why all of these are both wrong and completely retarded

11. Love it or leave it

Morality is irreverent, if someone stays with an abusive spouse, they are in fact partially responsible for not seeking help and trying to ignore the problem. Trying to pin the full blame on the spouse when they allowed the abuse to happen is just plain victimization. There is no logical reason to say "If you don't like it here you should stay just because if you leave then you're a coward." Fuck that, go find a place you can be happy and never look back. You'll be a much better, happier person for it in the end.

10. Taxation is not theft

If you look to early colonial America, they actually did try to run the federal government without taxation but donations from states. However more often then not the states flat out refused to donate which led to the federal government not having any money to get stuff done. This is when we accepted that taxation is going to be necessary to actually get stuff done

9. Without government, everyone will murder, rape, steal etc etc...

The problem with this is that it implies that EVERYONE has the same morality, motivations and personality. Yes, there are good people who will remain civil after the government is dismantled, there are also bad ones who will take the easier option to survive. Being looting, pillaging and killing their fellow man.

8. Who'll build the roads, take care of the poor, run healthcare, tie my shoes etc etc...

Ether no one will, or a corporation would have to which is generally a bad idea considering that a corporation is the last thing you want running things like healthcare in a free society.

7. Without regulation, the rich will dominate us!

Tell me, in a society with no rules, what is going to stop the rich, who have all the power, who can organize a militia, who can reasonably justify about anything for profit from dominating us for their own gain?

6. Redistribution of wealth

Except that a rules free society also rewards simply scamming people and even worse, theft, usually even more so then hard work. And don't tell me that a private police force is going to be somehow more competent and upstanding then a public one because that is just the biggest load ever.

5. What about the environment?!
The EPA are what stops corporations from turning the sky black with smog. Next

4. The "free rider problem"

If people are going to be free riders, what makes you seem to think they aren't going to make the next logical jump to simply surviving at the cost of others?

3. Safety > freedom

Again you're assuming that the global population has the same morality, motivations and personality. While only the most minute of crimes are done by a legal gun owner and we do have the right to bare arms. A fully "Free" society has has no law or protection. Privatized systems are just as easily corrupted as a government, if not worse because it effectively becomes a giant circle jerk.

2. But Anarchy's never been done before!

I believe I already explained Kowloon before, after a 30 year "hands off" policy the Chinese tore it down because they didn't want a nest of criminals next to hong kong. Even then it was so bad that police outright refused to go in with nothing but the largest groups. It's basically the same principle as getting rid of a ant hill or bees nest that's to close to your house.

1. The social contract

This is just retarded, because it implies that a person has no say in the government and comes off as a way of shunning partial responsibility for the state's condition. Yes we are in fact responsible for our government to an extent. Because we're the ones who give them their power and authority so it's our responsibility to kick them out once they start to misuse these. The real problem is that we're pretty much content with our current government, so people like you and me are in the minority rather then the majority.

More like "I'm gonna describe problems with government and arbitrarily pin them on statelessness"

[MrBogosity]

More like "I'm gonna describe problems with government and arbitrarily pin them on statelessness"

11. "You mean, you were raped? Didn't you try to run away?"

10. So, because the STATES wouldn't pay taxes to the Federal government, we have to use force against the PEOPLE?

9. And the bad ones will be far more likely to seek public office. "No one who wants to be president should under any circumstances be allowed to have the job." --Douglas Adams

8. There are no corporations in a free society. Corporations are a government creation.

7. The rich have no power in a free market; only money. Money is NOT power. The only way they can deal with you in a free market is by convincing you to voluntarily do business with them.

6. Theft and fraud happen NOW, and government are the biggest offenders.

5. No, technology does that. All the environmental regulations do is allow big corporate polluters to keep on belching crap into the air while making it hard for smaller businesses and startups to compete with them.

4. Because they can only do that with the voluntary consent of the other person.

3. Private systems lose money if they try to engage in bribery or other forms of corruption. Can you find any sort of corruption in UL? What about the hideous amounts of corruption in the FDA?

2. You mean the policy that launched Hong Kong to the top of the Economic Freedom Index and turned it from a country of slums into a bustling metropolis?

1. You think putting one mark on a piece of paper every 2 or 4 years is having a say in the government? You think writing a letter to your Congresscritter comes anywhere CLOSE to the amount of lobbying they get from special interests? Did blacks give government the power to make them slaves? Did American Indians give government the power to exterminate them en masse? Did Japanese-Americans give government the power to intern them in concentration camps? Tell us, which of the people gave Barack Obama the power to indefinitely detain ANY American citizen without warrant, trial, access to counsel, or even a writ of habeas corpus?

How can we kick them out with a corporatized news media bent on engineering elections rather than just reporting on them, closed debates, hideous ballot access laws that would shock a banana republic, and even openly rigged elections where constitutionally-valid votes are tossed aside and uncounted?

[Travis Retriever]

2.  Funny he should mention that place.  Cracked.com did an article on it:  http://www.cracked.com/article_19590_the-6-weirdest-cities-people-actually-live-in_p2.html  It's #1 on this list for those wondering.  A teaser:  "And to everybody's mutual surprise, Kowloon absolutely thrived on the anarchy."

@ShaneDK:  1.  I would also point out that, even IF we could "vote the bum out," last I checked, the bad laws, etc, all stay.

[AnCap Dave]

So I sent a message to my Congressman over the NDAA with the help of DownsizeDC.org. I knew what I was getting into, but I was more or less curious and quite frankly didn't have much else to do. Anyway, I have received a response from Senator Joe Lieberman.

There's a reason I put this in fail quotes...

Dear Mr. Turcotte:

Thank you for contacting me regarding sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA; S. 1867) related to detainees. I appreciate your concerns, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.
As you know, the United States Armed Forces are authorized to detain covered persons captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (P.L. 107-40) as unprivileged enemy belligerents pending disposition under the law of war. A covered person is any individual who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. Additionally, covered persons include an individual who was a part of, or substantially supported, al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. The authority to detain a person under this provision, however, does not extend to the detention of citizens or lawful resident aliens of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution.

Sections 1031 and 1032 of the NDAA were adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) in a 25-1 vote in a package of amendments intended to update and clarify the authority of the U.S. Armed Forces to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents established under the Authorization for Use of Military Force. These provisions reflect the view of the majority of SASC members that our military should continue to exercise its authority to detain unprivileged enemy belligerents and that members of al Qaeda or affiliated entities who have been involved with planning or carrying out an attack or, attempted attack, against the United States or its coalition partners should be subject to military detention pending disposition under the law of war.

I continue to believe that military detention and prosecution under the authorities established in the Military Commissions Act are the most effective means to safeguard our country against those who would do us harm. This is why I supported these NDAA provisions in committee and while this bill was debated by the full Senate.
On December 1, 2011, the Senate passed S. 1867 by a vote of 93-7. The compromise legislation agreed to by the Senate included Sections 1031 and 1032. along with a compromise. This compromise further reinforces that these sections will not affect existing laws relating to the detention of U.S. citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any others who are captured or arrested in the United States. Additionally, during the course of this debate, Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) offered an amendment (S.A. 1107), which was rejected by a vote of 38-60. I voted against S.A. 1107 because I believe that it did not adequately resolve the current ambiguities surrounding enemy detention. Lastly, on December 31, 2011, the President signed this bill into law.
Thank you again for sharing your views and concerns with me. I hope you will continue to visit http://lieberman.senate.gov for updated news about my work on behalf of Connecticut and the nation. Please contact me if you have any additional questions or comments about our work in Congress.


Sincerely,


Joseph I. Lieberman
UNITED STATES SENATOR

[MrBogosity]

Instead of doing a point-by-point rebuttal, I'll just say this:

I continue to believe that military detention and prosecution under the authorities established in the Military Commissions Act are the most effective means to safeguard our country against those who would do us harm.

No, it doesn't--you're still here!

[AnCap Dave]

Hey guys, more fail from a senator.

This time around, we have Richard Blumenthal's take on the NDAA.

Dear Mr. Turcotte,

Thank you for your thoughtful message regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I appreciate hearing from you.

Although I voted for the National Defense Authorization Act — which passed by a 86-13 margin — I will continue to seek modifications to address civil liberties concerns raised regarding several detainee provisions.

I share the concerns of many in Connecticut regarding the mandatory military custody and detention without trial provisions — which is why I voted to strip them from the bill.  An amendment to do so offered by Senator Mark Udall of Colorado unfortunately failed.  I supported other amendments that essentially sought the same objective of preserving and protecting Constitutional rights and due process safeguards.  As a result of these efforts, the detainee provisions in the legislation were revised to state explicitly that they do not affect the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens, or any other person in the United States.  The legislation was also modified to preserve the authority of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to continue criminal enforcement activities, regardless of whether a person is in military custody.

Ultimately, I supported the overall bill, the purpose of which is to authorize our nation's defense expenditures for the next year.  As a Senator and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I felt a responsibility to provide our troops with absolutely necessary support as they serve and sacrifice during a time of war.

This comprehensive measure provides funding for everything from paying  troops serving in combat and at home, to the ammunition, equipment, fuel and other supplies they use, and the training and medical treatment they need both before and after they deploy, and if they are wounded. It funds the maintenance and infrastructure at our bases, as well as critical weapons systems necessary to deter and prevent attacks by terrorists or other countries. 

I am still deeply troubled by the grave civil liberties implications of the detainee provisions, and I share the concerns of senior law enforcement, military, and intelligence officials that these detainee provisions are actually counterproductive to the national security goals they are supposed to serve.  I will continue to fight for additional measures for pursuing terrorism consistent with the basic protections guaranteed to all Americans by our Constitution.

Thank you again for writing. Please feel free to contact me in the future with any additional questions or concerns you may have.


Sincerely,

Richard Blumenthal
United States Senate

TL;DR version: I voted for the bill, but I understand your concerns...I just don't care.

By the way, Shane, feel free to put both Blumenthal and Lieberman as either Idiot Extraordinaire or Biggest Bogon Emitter.

[Ibrahim90]

Hey guys, more fail from a senator.

This time around, we have Richard Blumenthal's take on the NDAA.

TL;DR version: I voted for the bill, but I understand your concerns...I just don't care.

By the way, Shane, feel free to put both Blumenthal and Lieberman as either Idiot Extraordinaire or Biggest Bogon Emitter.

LOLwut?

frankly, these idiots are nothing; they can get a lifetime achievement or sth, but not biggest bogon emitter or idiot extraordinaire. It's not as if this bill would have gone into "law" if it weren't for comrade Stalin- I mean, Obama, signing the bill. and of course, to quote the news you provided of late:

Calif.--President Obama is planning to hand the U.S. Commerce Department authority over a forthcoming cybersecurity effort to create an Internet ID for Americans, a White House official said here today.

and while we're at it, here is another fail quote, from the TSA:

please be advised, that any inappropriate remarks or jokes about airport security could lead to your arrest

because our constitutional rights mean nothing.

as you may have guessed, I had to go through these TSA fuckers this morning. they put me into that retarded body scanner, and tried to frisk my shin, because they thought there was a metal object there. unsurprisingly, they found nothing. and they checked it 3 times in three different airports, in the same part of my body.

then some cow took my bag, and ransacked it because they thought I had a knife. turned out it was a disposable razor. which was sheathed. and at the bottom of the bag, where I can't get to it. And I told them in advance that I had a razor in the bag. oh, and by the way, they left the razor in the bag.

it took me almost an hour to repack my stuff. and they damaged some of my luggage.

[MrBogosity]

Harry Browne used this as an example years ago of a Senator explaining why he voted for something hideous: "I had to! It was part of a defense appropriations bill! You wouldn't want the country to be defenseless, would you?"

Yeah, as if voting it down or vetoing it would just mean Congress sits on their thumbs and doesn't fund defense. It's not like they can't turn around and pass another bill without the offending passages that their fellow Senators and the President wouldn't object to! "Oh, wow! What a concept! I never thought of that! Gee, Shane, you're some kind of genius..."

[Travis Retriever]

Every single comment by CaptainRidley and JungleJargon on this video: [yt]6IAExlOz2OM[/yt]