THE BORE

General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 03:07:53 PM

Title: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 03:07:53 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/its_no_longer_just_about_hilla.html

Quote
Every member has her own plans for November, including for a few, voting for Obama. Co-founder Amy Siskind, a former Wall Street exec and Clinton fundraiser, told me, "I won't vote for Obama, but I'm not sure what I'll do." Cynthia Ruccia, a Democratic activist from Columbus, Ohio, who twice ran against Republican John Kasich, is supporting McCain -- and organizing other Democrats in her swing state to do likewise.

Way to take the defeat rationally, ladies.  I would make a joke about women not thinking logically, but I don't want you dingbats camped out on my lawn screaming at me.  There was no conspiracy.  There was no robbery.  She lost fair and square.  Get over it and yourselves.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Guybrush Threepwood on August 19, 2008, 03:09:19 PM
Kind of like how Nancy Pelosi super-destoryed the chances of a woman ever being Speaker of the House again.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Tauntaun on August 19, 2008, 03:12:18 PM
:duh  people mayne
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mr. Gundam on August 19, 2008, 03:20:31 PM
I'd like to know where these geniuses stand on the issues.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Guybrush Threepwood on August 19, 2008, 03:22:01 PM
I'd like to know where these geniuses stand on the issues.

They don't. They only support(ed) Hillary because she's a woman.

"Nasty Cunts" is what they are called, I believe.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 03:29:39 PM
I'd like to know where these geniuses stand on the issues.

They don't. They only support(ed) Hillary because she's a woman.

"Nasty Cunts" is what they are called, I believe.

Haha, yeah pretty much.  What's funny is they expected black people to fall back in line and support Hillary if she won, but won't do it for Obama.  And if Hillary HAD won, she would have basically stole the election.  Obama got more votes and delegates.  smh.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: TakingBackSunday on August 19, 2008, 03:57:18 PM
There were a few of these crazies outside the Obama rally in Akron at the end of February.  All of us in line for it were all cool, not really talking politics or anything, not being annoying, and these bitches come up and spew shit how we're supporting the wrong candidate blahblah.

Shuddup beyitch
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: laesperanzapaz on August 19, 2008, 04:41:46 PM
man.

i weep for humanity
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 04:50:04 PM
Obama, Clinton, or Mccain; it's like flushing the same toilet with a different handle.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 05:40:17 PM
Obama, Clinton, or Mccain; it's like flushing the same toilet with a different handle.

While this is true to an extent, at least in Obama's America there are sewers to carry the shit away.  In Ron Paul's Libertopia, you would have to pay the inevitable singular Corporate Entity that would own everything an exorbitant amount of money just to flush the toilet!  Chamber pots ahoy!
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Olivia Wilde Homo on August 19, 2008, 05:51:24 PM
So basically all these women who supported a candidate only because she has a vagina, is now trying to move people to become Republicans, a nominee who is a white man.  Narcissism at its worst I guess.

Then again, Hillary supporters aren't the shiniest pennies in the fountain.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Fresh Prince on August 19, 2008, 06:04:37 PM
It seems to me most of these woman think she only failed because she was a woman when she failed for a whole lot more. It's like why have Siebel as VP when Hillary is already there argument? Maybe because as a woman she brings different attributes to the table.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 06:32:44 PM
It seems to me most of these woman think she only failed because she was a woman when she failed for a whole lot more. It's like why have Siebel as VP when Hillary is already there argument? Maybe because as a woman she brings different attributes to the table.

Haha, most of them are unwilling to admit she failed at all.  They think (I don't like using that word in reference to these people, but oh well) that the nomination was stolen from her by the big bad men.  smh.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mr. Gundam on August 19, 2008, 06:35:03 PM
It seems to me most of these woman think she only failed because she was a woman when she failed for a whole lot more. It's like why have Siebel as VP when Hillary is already there argument? Maybe because as a woman she brings different attributes to the table.

Haha, most of them are unwilling to admit she failed at all.  They think (I don't like using that word in reference to these people, but oh well) that the nomination was stolen from her by the big bad men.  smh.

So let's support the big bad white man! smh
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Brehvolution on August 19, 2008, 06:35:51 PM
Obama, Clinton, or Mccain; it's like flushing the same toilet with a different handle.

Awesome.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Beardo on August 19, 2008, 06:48:49 PM
they all suck
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 06:50:49 PM
While this is true to an extent, at least in Obama's America there are sewers to carry the shit away. 

Because sewers dont exist outside of socialism.   ::)

  In Ron Paul's Libertopia, you would have to pay the inevitable singular Corporate Entity that would own everything an exorbitant amount of money just to flush the toilet! 

What funny is that you dread a monopoly from some corporate entity (which by the way monopolies go against everything the free market stands for) yet fail to realize this insult of a singular Corporate Entity" exists. It's called the government and you want to give it more power. You HAVE to pay a city owned service for all of our waste whether you want to or not. You have no choice. So really you just owned yourself. 
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: duckman2000 on August 19, 2008, 07:06:52 PM
Jävla fittstim
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 07:17:54 PM
Overblown.

There are a few crazies who deeply internalized the Obama vs. Clinton struggle and can't move on.  Plus there are legit gripes about the way Hillary was treated in some parts of the media (especially cable news) which some of her supporters unfairly attributed to Obama's campaign.

But Obama's thumping McCain among women and all the middle aged white feminists I know in real life and online are seriously invested in beating McCain.

Edwards 2016! (http://donnaedwards.house.gov/)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 19, 2008, 07:21:09 PM
While this is true to an extent, at least in Obama's America there are sewers to carry the shit away. 

Because sewers dont exist outside of socialism.   ::)

  In Ron Paul's Libertopia, you would have to pay the inevitable singular Corporate Entity that would own everything an exorbitant amount of money just to flush the toilet! 

What funny is that you dread a monopoly from some corporate entity (which by the way monopolies go against everything the free market stands for) yet fail to realize this insult of a singular Corporate Entity" exists. It's called the government and you want to give it more power. You HAVE to pay a city owned service for all of our waste whether you want to or not. You have no choice. So really you just owned yourself. 

FoC, the only alternative to government monopolies of water utilities is government-granted monopolies, which haven't worked out well in Argentina, for example. Water and wastewater infrastructures need to be shared and the costs need to be shared as well. 

Overblown.
Yeah, otherwise McCain would be doing much better.


Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 07:26:22 PM

FoC, the only alternative to government monopolies of water utilities is government-granted monopolies, which haven't worked out well in Argentina, for example. Water and wastewater infrastructures need to be shared and the costs need to be shared as well. 

I understand. I was jut point out his hilarious hypocrisy of being afraid of an "evil" monopolistic corporation when we have a monopolistic government doing the same damn thing.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 07:30:55 PM
Except that the government monopoly isn't driven by the profit motive and in a democracy there's some mechanism to make them responsible to the consumers.  As flawed as it might be you don't have either of those things in an unregulated private monopoly.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 07:36:20 PM
Quote
Except that the government monopoly isn't driven by the profit motive

Sure it is. Corruption, back room deals, bureaucracy bullshit; All that makes government extremely ineffective an almost everything. How many lame ass articles have I seen on Digg that say that Mccain is being manipulated by the evil corporations for bigger profits.


Quote
and in a democracy there's some mechanism to make them responsible to the consumers.

Yeah we get to vote every 4 years. Where as in a  free market your voting ballet is your wallet which you use every day. If you dont like a company then you change to a better one. Dont like a government? Then what? Oh you can petition and support lobbies but thats is a very slow process and most of the time stacked heavily against the individual.


Quote
As flawed as it might be you don't have either of those things in an unregulated private monopoly.

 And I am against any monopolies to began with. I was supporting what Triumph said I was. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of his shitty statement.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 07:53:34 PM
Where as in a  free market your voting ballet is your wallet which you use every day. If you dont like a company then you change to a better one.

Which you couldn't do if the company had a monopoly on a vital resource.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 07:59:02 PM
Where as in a  free market your voting ballet is your wallet which you use every day. If you dont like a company then you change to a better one.

Which you couldn't do if the company had a monopoly on a vital resource.


:facepalm


What dont you understand about.

Monopolies are not a free market.

Monopolies are not a free market.

Monopolies are not a free market.

Monopolies are not a free market.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Positive Touch on August 19, 2008, 08:02:52 PM
there he goes again
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Fresh Prince on August 19, 2008, 08:08:23 PM
Monopolies occur in free markets  ::)
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 08:27:17 PM
Monopolies occur in free markets  ::)

In a free market anyone can challenge the monopoly by providing a better product or service...
In a government provided service you have very little to no way of challenging them. "Oh dont like the long wait at the DMV? Next."
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Fresh Prince on August 19, 2008, 08:34:37 PM
Except in the late 1800's when Rockefeller had a near monopoly on kerosene oil thanks to the free market until the evil government placed anti-trust laws to encourage competition.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 08:53:45 PM
Whether the breakup of Standard Oil was beneficial is a matter of some controversy. Many economists agree that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, citing its much reduced market presence by the time of the antitrust trial. They also argue that the intense free market competition resulted in cheaper oil prices and more diverse petroleum products for consumers.

 Standard's market share fell gradually to 64% by 1911. It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11%).

There is no doubt that Standard Oil had a huge market share through the use of shady deals but by the time the Sherman Anti Trust act came around. Many other independent oil companies were emerging.

Also a few neat tidbits of information.


"Rockefeller owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world."
"The price of Kerosine dropped more than 50% during Standard Oils heyday."
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: Fresh Prince on August 19, 2008, 09:12:48 PM
So wait are you now endorising monopolies because they have cheaper prices?

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soon
Post by: radioheadrule83 on August 19, 2008, 09:16:45 PM
I don't think the women who fought for sufferage back in the day quite realised how distinguished mentally-challenged some of their female ancestors would be. Perhaps if they had, my family would have a maid that would put out for the men of the house. Tis a shame.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 19, 2008, 09:20:04 PM
Whether the breakup of Standard Oil was beneficial is a matter of some controversy. Many economists agree that Standard Oil was not a monopoly, citing its much reduced market presence by the time of the antitrust trial. They also argue that the intense free market competition resulted in cheaper oil prices and more diverse petroleum products for consumers.

 Standard's market share fell gradually to 64% by 1911. It did not try to monopolize the exploration and pumping of oil (its share in 1911 was 11%).

There is no doubt that Standard Oil had a huge market share through the use of shady deals but by the time the Sherman Anti Trust act came around. Many other independent oil companies were emerging.

Also a few neat tidbits of information.


"Rockefeller owned a quarter of the shares of the resultant companies, and those share values mostly doubled, he emerged from the dissolution as the richest man in the world."
"The price of Kerosine dropped more than 50% during Standard Oils heyday."

If you're going to quote a Wikipedia article, use quotation marks and provide a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil)

edit: beaten by Genghis Cohen

"Monopolies are not a free market."

Yes, but water utilities around the world are either government monopolies or government granted monopolies, where single corporations run or manage the water utilities.I have a hard time imagining how competing corporations would build multiple sewer systems in a single neighborhood in minarchist or anarchist society and compete for costumers. Somehow they'd form defacto monopolies because the infrastructure is so fucking expensive.

Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Eric P on August 19, 2008, 09:23:36 PM
I have a hard time imagining how competing corporations would build multiple sewer systems in a single neighborhood in minarchist or anarchist society and compete for costumers.

and that's why you're not a multibillion dollar sewage magnate but instead some dude on a forum
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Olivia Wilde Homo on August 19, 2008, 09:37:47 PM
As a Civil Engineering student who has worked and visited several wastewater treatment facilities, the idea of multiple sewage systems is so mind numbingly distinguished mentally-challenged that only a Randroid or someone who goes to school on a short bus would think it was a decent idea.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 19, 2008, 09:42:09 PM
this is what happens when dogma overrules common sense, folks
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 09:45:33 PM
this is what happens when dogma overrules common sense, folks

PROOF
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: etiolate on August 19, 2008, 09:50:06 PM
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.

Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 09:50:47 PM
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.

Exhibit A:  Nintendo Wii
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Olivia Wilde Homo on August 19, 2008, 09:56:35 PM
We were never a free market in the first place.  Even Adam Smith himself advocated a degree of intervention.

You will never see a true free market because nothing is ever cut and dry.  It isn't a simple matter of "voting with your wallet."  If the building shuts down and is abandoned (re: Detroit), then it is still a problem.  Not to mention the potential environmental damages that might have been caused that simply just don't re-appear because you voted with your wallet by picking Company B instead of Company A.

The reason why a competitive sewer system won't work is because there is only so much you can do underground.  You can't just have 10 companies lay down sewer piping because it wouldn't work, because there is only so much room.  Besides, how would you switch competition?  Tell a company to rip their pipe from your residence?  Doesn't work that way, not to mention out the fucking ass expensive.  The only way that a competitive sewage system would work is if a household bought and installed their own sewage piping and then called up a business to hook it up from underground, which again, is expensive.  We won't even get into the treatment of the sewage itself.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: radioheadrule83 on August 19, 2008, 10:01:20 PM
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.



Some people are sheep yes, but that's always been the case, and its not always a bad strategy. The information age just gives people the means to be more aware and attuned to the hype and fervor generated by the rest of the herd.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: cubicle47b on August 19, 2008, 10:05:04 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis

Free market. :bow
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: etiolate on August 19, 2008, 10:21:14 PM
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.

Exhibit A:  Nintendo Wii

Actually the market was waiting there for years and Nintendo was first to answer the call. What follows now may be the actual exhibit you are looking for.

Ideally, there is the creator and the audience that is responsible for the quality and success of a product. In modern culture, these two entities rise to the top only briefly and are soon drowned out, then replaced by the corporation/producer element.

In the Wii example, the consumer entity existed first, which any research on an individual's part will tell you. It wasn't that a group like women naturally hated videogames, but that they were excluded from the focus of videogames and barely existed in the development world or media. Eventually some company was going to realize this and use it, it just happened to be Nintendo. Part of the reason it may have been Nintendo, because they really hadn't been marketing savvy in the recent past, was because of their creators within the company that were willing to try new things. So the creator entity came second, and it was a creator with a history of quality.

What happened post-Wii success was the glutton of shovelware that tried to cash in, which has made basically a handshake towards a new audience into a greed focused molestation of that audience. The consumer is not being informed, the consumer is kept dumb about game quality and it is no good for the Wii market. So, potentially the Wii can be an exhibit, but it also an example of how things should be, with consumers being heard and creators creating. Honestly, at this point anything will end up an exhibit until the consumer culture is changed.

Looking at PC Gaming, all you have is the same stuff being regurgitated, without creators creating or daring, and a consumer that just doesn't question at all. So you get narrower and narrower selection, and repackaged goods.

Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:31:49 PM
Quote
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.

So what you are saying is that people aren't responsible for themselves?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:36:46 PM
I originally didn't want to argue for or against anything other than the shitty presidential candidates we have. I only wanted to point out Triumph's hilarious hypocrisy.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 19, 2008, 10:39:29 PM
Quote
FoC, we're not a free market anymore.  We're a herd market. The consumer no longer dictates what succeeds and what fails, the modern consumer just plain consumes without much question.

So what you are saying is that people aren't responsible for themselves?

when have people ever been responsible for themselves? what about "no man is an island" is so difficult to grasp?

oh, i am going to regret taking you seriously again, aren't i

yes i am
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Rman on August 19, 2008, 10:41:51 PM
Oh, FOC.  You provide endless amusement.  I always wonder how FOC is IRL.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:44:18 PM
Oh, FOC.  You provide endless amusement.  I always wonder how FOC is IRL.

You can ask olimario or EBW.

Quote
Then have people ever been responsible for themselves?

If im not responsible for myself, then who is responsible for me?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 19, 2008, 10:44:45 PM
take a guess
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Crushed on August 19, 2008, 10:44:51 PM
Oh, FOC.  You provide endless amusement.  I always wonder how FOC is IRL.

"OH, MY VALVE! THESE SAVAGES! THESE SODOMITES!"
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:46:00 PM
take a guess

Society? Then all my libertarian ranting is society's fault. You can blame yourself for me.

Sucks to be you knowing that you are responsible for me, doesnt it.  :lol
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 19, 2008, 10:46:24 PM
i am taking responsibility for you by trying to educate you
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 10:46:52 PM
Despite etiolate's transparent attempt to goad me into arguing with him I will continue to focus my e-ire on FoC.

:facepalm


What dont you understand about.

Monopolies are not a free market.

Monopolies are not a free market.
Monopolies occur in free markets  ::)

In a free market anyone can challenge the monopoly by providing a better product or service...
In a government provided service you have very little to no way of challenging them. "Oh dont like the long wait at the DMV? Next."

Not anyone.  Just those with access to the capital, material, and labor required.

If someone monopolizes a natural resource which can not be mass-produced it would be impossible to challenge them.  If Malek's company United Polack owned all the water, how would you create a competing sewage system?

The free market is a way of distributing resources and encouraging their development which can sometimes be very efficient.  But it can not change fundamental facts about scarcity.  It is not magic.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:48:29 PM
Quote
i am taking responsibility for you by trying to educate you

And if I refuse are you still responsible for my act of refusing?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 19, 2008, 10:52:03 PM
society is not just you and me
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 19, 2008, 10:53:17 PM
society is not just you and me


Sounds like your passing the buck. Gee that sure is easy to do when no one is responsible for themselves or anything at all.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 11:00:56 PM
See now I'm just feeling ignored.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 19, 2008, 11:02:38 PM

If someone monopolizes a natural resource which can not be mass-produced it would be impossible to challenge them.  If Malek's company United Polack owned all the water, how would you create a competing sewage system?

The free market is a way of distributing resources and encouraging their development which can sometimes be very efficient.  But it can not change fundamental facts about scarcity.  It is not magic.

United Polak: we provide you with warm water and cold vodka. What's not to like?

(our costs possibly. because we're a monopoly, we can do as we please)

FoC, how would natural resources be managed in a minimalist dreamworld? If I mixed my labor with Lake Ontario, would Lake Ontario be mine?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Mandark on August 19, 2008, 11:05:06 PM
I'm not drinking anything that Malek "mixed his labor" with, monopoly or no.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Fresh Prince on August 19, 2008, 11:06:21 PM
Sometimes I wonder is FoC even steps out of his house and interacts with the world outside it.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 11:14:40 PM
Sometimes I wonder is FoC even steps out of his house and interacts with the world outside it.

Funnily enough, I'm willing to bet that of everyone on the forum I interact with society the least.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 19, 2008, 11:16:36 PM
Sometimes I wonder is FoC even steps out of his house and interacts with the world outside it.

Funnily enough, I'm willing to bet that of everyone on the forum I interact with society the least.

*coughs*
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 19, 2008, 11:20:40 PM
Sometimes I wonder is FoC even steps out of his house and interacts with the world outside it.

Funnily enough, I'm willing to bet that of everyone on the forum I interact with society the least.

*coughs*

I dunno dude.  I've gone about 10 days in the past month without speaking to another flesh and blood human being.  Top that if you can.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 19, 2008, 11:25:28 PM
Sometimes I wonder is FoC even steps out of his house and interacts with the world outside it.

Funnily enough, I'm willing to bet that of everyone on the forum I interact with society the least.

*coughs*

I dunno dude.  I've gone about 10 days in the past month without speaking to another flesh and blood human being.  Top that if you can.

You have me beat. When I was a teenager, however, I spent entire months without talking to another single person.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: drohne on August 19, 2008, 11:29:31 PM
what has foc got against flush toilets

do teenage objectivists just let it stew or what

actually jenkem-huffing would explain his posting habits
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Crushed on August 20, 2008, 01:25:40 AM
Let's get this thread back on track.

http://hillaryis44.com/

Yep, they're still around. And each post is all about the Impending NObama NOvember Democratic Disaster Defeat, and how the entire world has come to the obvious conclusion that NObama will lose 100000 to 1 to McCain.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: laesperanzapaz on August 20, 2008, 04:21:12 AM
i think FoC has out-drinky'd drinky [and everoyone else].  and not just the first time.

i think by now he's just trolling for amusement and teh vain rebuttals that the rest of you [albeit with good intentions] provide endlessly.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Phoenix Dark on August 20, 2008, 10:07:43 AM
Obama is up by double digits among women (and Hispanics) but the media keeps hammering this gossip bullshit. Sure some women won't vote for Obama due to Hillary's loss but I'd imagine most are smart enough to realize a vote for McCain is a vote against all the things they've fought for. My mom almost cried when Hillary lost but now she's firmly in Obama's corner.

When if Obama loses it won't be because of bitter Hillary fantards
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 20, 2008, 11:10:15 AM
society is not just you and me


Sounds like your passing the buck. Gee that sure is easy to do when no one is responsible for themselves or anything at all.

don't be so uselessly binary. it's not an either-or proposition, even though you'd love to frame it as such in your shallow, clueless little world. people are responsible for themselves AND for others. at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Mandark on August 20, 2008, 11:35:30 AM
at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

When United Polak bought all the air.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Eric P on August 20, 2008, 11:42:33 AM
at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

When United Polak bought all the air.

(http://burrowowl.net/shimmie/get.php/6053%20-%20mel_brooks%20perriair%20spaceballs.jpg)

the free market will foster competition
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 11:52:53 AM
As a consumer, Mandark, you can vote with your wallet and suffocate.


Though after all the years of producing hot air, you can survive on your own and maybe even sell a little surplus to United Polak.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 20, 2008, 12:12:18 PM

don't be so uselessly binary. it's not an either-or proposition, even though you'd love to frame it as such in your shallow, clueless little world. people are responsible for themselves AND for others. at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

Are you going to commit suicide now that you realize that you are responsible for all my libertarian rantings? How can you live with yourself knowing you have created such a monster??
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Van Cruncheon on August 20, 2008, 01:00:32 PM
you're responsible for the rantings; i'm responsible for humoring them and being too lazy to have you murdered as a favor to the human race -- which really illustrates my point nicely
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 01:08:49 PM

don't be so uselessly binary. it's not an either-or proposition, even though you'd love to frame it as such in your shallow, clueless little world. people are responsible for themselves AND for others. at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

Are you going to commit suicide now that you realize that you are responsible for all my libertarian rantings? How can you live with yourself knowing you have created such a monster??

Because you didn't create or popularize libertarianism yourself, others are partly responsible for your present views. You aren't a solitary individual; you need others to create and transmit things like language, technology, customs, and political ideas. However, you are ultimately an autonomous agent, and responsible for what views you choose to hold.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 01:11:47 PM

don't be so uselessly binary. it's not an either-or proposition, even though you'd love to frame it as such in your shallow, clueless little world. people are responsible for themselves AND for others. at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

Are you going to commit suicide now that you realize that you are responsible for all my libertarian rantings? How can you live with yourself knowing you have created such a monster??

Because you didn't create or popularize libertarianism yourself, others are partly responsible for your present views. You aren't a solitary individual; you need others to create and transmit things like language, technology, customs, and political ideas. However, you are ultimately an autonomous agent, and responsible for what views you choose to hold.

Don't forget FoC's near total reliance on Wikipedia

Fine, You aren't a solitary individual; you need others to create and transmit things like language, technology, customs, political ideas, and Wikipedia articles, which you can cut and paste.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Eric P on August 20, 2008, 01:21:10 PM

don't be so uselessly binary. it's not an either-or proposition, even though you'd love to frame it as such in your shallow, clueless little world. people are responsible for themselves AND for others. at what point did you assume every man operates in a vacuum?

Are you going to commit suicide now that you realize that you are responsible for all my libertarian rantings? How can you live with yourself knowing you have created such a monster??

Because you didn't create or popularize libertarianism yourself, others are partly responsible for your present views. You aren't a solitary individual; you need others to create and transmit things like language, technology, customs, and political ideas. However, you are ultimately an autonomous agent, and responsible for what views you choose to hold.

Don't forget FoC's near total reliance on Wikipedia

Fine, You aren't a solitary individual; you need others to create and transmit things like language, technology, customs, political ideas, and Wikipedia articles, which you can cut and paste.

proof?

proof

proof?
proof?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Mandark on August 20, 2008, 01:21:36 PM
Truly, FoC stands on the shoulders of midgets.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 20, 2008, 02:00:37 PM
Truly, FoC stands on the shoulders of midgets.

Poor midgets.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: FlameOfCallandor on August 20, 2008, 02:06:55 PM
 :lol :lol

You guys never fail to amuse me.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Phoenix Dark on August 20, 2008, 02:12:17 PM
the more i think about it the more i'm convinced FoC=Drinky joke character

anyway isn't this thread supposed to be about hillary
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 02:17:17 PM
the more i think about it the more i'm convinced FoC=Drinky joke character

Surely a man with a 283 IQ could create a better joke character.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Crushed on August 20, 2008, 02:33:23 PM
:lol :lol

You guys never fail to amuse me.
(http://i37.tinypic.com/140wveo.jpg)
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Eric P on August 20, 2008, 02:57:37 PM
the more i think about it the more i'm convinced FoC=Drinky joke character

Surely a man with a 283 IQ could create a better joke character.

i heard he had a positronic brain which could let him calculate the end of pie's sequence.
Title: Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo
Post by: APF on August 20, 2008, 09:44:33 PM
Overblown.

There are a few crazies who deeply internalized the Obama vs. Clinton struggle and can't move on.  Plus there are legit gripes about the way Hillary was treated in some parts of the media (especially cable news) which some of her supporters unfairly attributed to Obama's campaign.

But Obama's thumping McCain among women and all the middle aged white feminists I know in real life and online are seriously invested in beating McCain.

This.  I know some pretty irrational oldschool-fem Hillary supporters who *hated* Obama during the primaries, but more because of the mind-bogglingly differential treatment of the candidates in the press that Obama benefited from, than anything having to do with the man or his policies.  After a week of stewing all that anger focused on the "real" enemy.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Crushed on August 20, 2008, 09:51:56 PM
(sees the title of APF's post [Re: Hillary Clinton destroyed the chances of a woman being President anytime soo], which is pre-edit)
(sees post that APF was responding to)

...did it take you a whole day to write that?
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: APF on August 20, 2008, 10:25:44 PM
No, just read up to that point and replied.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 10:28:56 PM
APF and Crushed need to hate-fuck.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 20, 2008, 10:29:49 PM
APF and Crushed need to hate-fuck.

We could film it and sell that shit on the web, then get some major fuck monies.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Flannel Boy on August 20, 2008, 10:45:17 PM
this would be a spiritual experience; we can't cheapen it with money.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: Human Snorenado on August 20, 2008, 10:54:46 PM
this would be a spiritual experience; we can't cheapen it with money.

This is why you fail the LSAT.
Title: Re: This was a thread about delusional Clinton supporters, but FOC shat it up.
Post by: APF on August 20, 2008, 11:28:47 PM
Me and who?