"Stupid wingnut says something stupid" thread

[tyrannosaurus vex]

It's amusing when they say stuff like that, and then argue the military budget should be doubled, and more wars declared.  Because the military totally isn't a quasi-socialist society, and the Pentagon budget is paid for by faeries and leprechauns, not out of the budget.

WE HAVE TO KEEP AMMURKA SAFE! You wouldn't know anything about FIGHTING for LIBERTY, Redcoat!

[Jenne]

It's amusing when they say stuff like that, and then argue the military budget should be doubled, and more wars declared.  Because the military totally isn't a quasi-socialist society, and the Pentagon budget is paid for by faeries and leprechauns, not out of the budget.

That's  the GOOD spending America does...bad spending is all those gummament programs that the poor feed off of like gluttons.  C'mon, Cain, priorities, priorities!  And we're not supposed to talk about how the military's FUNDED.  Sheesh.

[Jenne]

god i hope they win control of congress.

pleasepleasepleasepleaseplease

Someone may have to remind you of this one day,  just saying.

[Don Coyote]

It's amusing when they say stuff like that, and then argue the military budget should be doubled, and more wars declared.  Because the military totally isn't a quasi-socialist society, and the Pentagon budget is paid for by faeries and leprechauns, not out of the budget.

Did you just call all of us PATRIOTS quasi-socialist?!?!?!?!?!?!?! WHY YOU LIMEY BASTARD!!!!!!!






The military is totally welfare, which is why you find people that have been in 10-20 years at the same low rank that hate it, but will never leave.

[Disco Pickle]

I'm sure this doesn't happen here too often, so I'm posting a facebook convo with
this nutjob democrat who lives in my city.

[edit for dumbassery]

[Cramulus]

from http://www.teapartynation.com/forum

What is Wrong with Socialism?
There remains a fundamental ideological task that must be accomplished in order to help defuse support of any Socialist takeover, and that is to persuasively answer the question: What is wrong with Socialism?

Socialism is a necessarily totalitarian ideology that seeks to synthesize the political, economic, social, and private life of individuals and to place it all in control of the state. Indeed, it is capitalism and its assumptions that make the division of political, economic, social, and private life possible.

Individual rights, and specifically, private property, free exchange, freedom of labor movement, are necessary for political and social freedom. One cannot labor freely under a system when one's economic or even personal fortunes are predicated on one's political attitudes, which in practice means support for the individuals in control of the government.

The alternative vision of capitalism is a world where freemen work competitively and/or with one another in the absence of state, societal, or personal coercion to build better goods and provide better services for their fellow men. It is a world where each person owns his own life and decides what he or she will do with it, given that he does not coerce others or obstruct others from doing the same.

This does not mean a world of absolute freedom, which is impossible; it means a world where people may choose whether or not to take personal responsibility for their lives, suffer the consequences, learn, and adapt; this brings out the best in men, and ultimately, leads to a great civilization led by great men. The civilization is not driven fundamentally by the political class, but also by those who comprise the economy, and the society.

There is a utopian core of socialism that holds that desirable ends can be accomplished by undesirable or morally reprehensible means. Indeed, morality itself is disfigured in the socialist utopian worldview, where evil becomes good, destruction leads to creation, and coercion leads to freedom.

But it has never been satisfactorily answered: How is it possible to use coercion to propel mankind to a world free of coercion? How can one expect a socialist world of selfless contribution to Society and the State, when socialism itself attracts those intellectuals and workers who themselves seek at all costs to avoid personal responsibility?

In other words, wouldn't a world run by socialists itself be comprised of people seeking to avoid personal responsibility, and if so, wouldn't this lead to declining personal contributions towards production? And if so, wouldn't this itself elicit the coercion socialism is said to be designed to rid the world of? Indeed, wouldn't a socialist world wind up being infinitely more coercive, not less?

We find that Socialism itself is an inherently destructive ideology without any redeeming value of being able to express specifically how mankind can transform Society into a morally, economically, or politically superior system of human affairs. Instead we find Socialism to be a rationalization of a deep-seated hatred for Self-interest.

[Cramulus]

from http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2010/09/14/the_endless_wars_of_islam/page/1 ---

Of the roughly 25 wars currently ongoing, 21 involve Muslim countries. Put differently, Islam is connected to 80% of the planet's armed conflicts, while making up only 20% of its population. There's a reason for that.

[Don Coyote]

from http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2010/09/14/the_endless_wars_of_islam/page/1 ---

Of the roughly 25 wars currently ongoing, 21 involve Muslim countries. Put differently, Islam is connected to 80% of the planet's armed conflicts, while making up only 20% of its population. There's a reason for that.

Crazy white people fucking shit up?
Crazy people are crazy?
Jesus mind lazorz?
Cthullu?

[Bruno]

Obviously, it's because they hate our freedoms THESE CANS!!!!!11!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NxLtVG9_eg

[Doktor Howl]

Armstrong Williams.   

It's amazing that he even shows his face after getting caught taking federal money to pimp out NCLB.

[Disco Pickle]

shit, bad editing is bad editing.

ignore that last guys' name.  I know him IRL and he's a complete dickhole.

If he was running down the street on fire, I wouldn't piss on him to put him out.

[Cain]

Armstrong Williams.   

It's amazing that he even shows his face after getting caught taking federal money to pimp out NCLB.

I think Ollie North sometimes writes for Townhall as well.

[Doktor Howl]

[Freeky]

[the last yatto]

hxxp://www.xaviercromartie.com/
And now, I will utilize libertarian logic in order to put everything together and make a horrific prediction for the future:


6 November 2012: Barack Obama will not be content to give up his power. On the grounds of "the need for continuity of government during this financial crisis (viz., hyperinflation)," Obama will enact a Rex 84-like contingency plan. Citing the Holder ruling, Obama will unilaterally declare lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com, mises.org, wikileaks.org, et al. to be terrorist websites. Perhaps the Rothbardians' attempts to end the Federal Reserve will be considered "directly participating in attacks on the United States," and so Rockwell, Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Justin Raimondo, et al. will be targeted for assassination. More likely, though, the feds will raid their homes, arrest them, and seize their laptops, cell phones, guns, money, and anything else of use. Since terrorists do not qualify as "persons," the Rockwell gang will be tortured and detained indefinitely for openly opposing the state and its wars. The interrogators will demand information regarding "the material support of terrorism"—a list of everyone who donated to keep these websites operating. These people will be sought and detained indefinitely as well. Thus, Obama will have successfully emulated his hero Abraham Lincoln's dictatorial censorship of dissent. Instead of using force to "save" the Union from secessionists, Obama will use force to "save" the United States from "terrorists."