If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Not News: Bootstrappy libertarian John Stossel blasts the government for providing flood insurance. News: He is collecting a flood insurance check. Facepalm: For the third time   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 187
    More: Dumbass, John Stossel, flood insurance, news, money back guarantee, National Flood Insurance Program, floods, Steve Doocy, federal government  
•       •       •

2359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Nov 2012 at 3:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



187 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-01 05:57:03 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.


I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.
 
2012-11-01 05:58:54 PM  

Egalitarian: hahahaha.

my capital-L Libertarian relative is in love with John Stossel. He also gleefully takes advantage of Medicare, and has made ample use of NPR and PBS in is lifetime. Fark it if he will give the latter any money voluntarily. (on a related note, even though the ACLU helped him a couple times, he won't give them money, the excuse being they took some case he didn't like).

On a recent visit, he left out a Stossel book on a table. I flipped through it and saw a chapter on Title IX. Really? REALLY? Wellllll public schools are Stalinist communism to begin with. But giving girls equal money for athletic activities is downright Maoist! (or something). Girls learning leadership, team skills and developing athletic ability? What a waste of money!


I remember incredulously watching a 20/20 one time as John Stossel said, with a straight face, that there shouldn't be a National Parks system and that our parks should be broken up and sold to private land owners because private land owners inherently take better care of their property than government because they have more invested in it.

Lesse ....

This...

www.worldnewsinn.com

vs.

www.waldeneffect.org
 
2012-11-01 06:04:05 PM  
I have always thought of Libertarians as quirky, but open minded and principled.

Since 2009, Libertarian has become this 'fark-you, I have mine' mindset, that is anti-government, but is pro-war, anti-poor, never anti-corporation, and is OK with religion.

I heard of a self-described Libertarian Evangelical. Libertarians should not care about who you fark in bedroom, if you are married, if your soul is saved, or what chemicals you choose to put in your own body.

Republicans have made Libertarian another word for Republican after George W made Republican look bad. Now they are making the word Libertarian look bad.

I want the word Libertarian back from the party of small government. They can find another word to use.
 
2012-11-01 06:05:41 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.


Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.
 
2012-11-01 06:12:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.

Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.


That was the one you responded to with "don't you live in Manhattan", right? Lulz.
 
2012-11-01 06:14:45 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Your effort to make InmanRoshi look foolish only succeeded in making you look both foolish and dishonest. Your ongoing defense of your posts just makes you look pathetic.

hehe if you say so, PFQ.

"Don't you live in Manhattan"? Haha, dope.

I was incredulous that a person who lives in a major coastal city could be so ignorant of the historic and economic forces at play. I should have remembered that I was dealing with you.

I am amazed that you think making yourself appear illiterate and dishonest is somehow an effective tactic in discussion. I had no idea that Mitt Romney had a School of Debate. That guy's got his hands in everything!I know who I am dealing with and it still surprises me each time you do it.

Your response to Imnroshi was a case study in dishonesty and illiteracy, as is most of your posting here on Fark. Normally that would just be annoying, but combined with your delusions of intellectual superiority it really becomes the best sort of tragicomedy.

That was the one you responded to with "don't you live in Manhattan", right? Lulz.


Yes I verified where you lived. You got me on that. Masterful.
 
2012-11-01 06:21:53 PM  
Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).

Sorry libtard, try again with your fake outrage and stupid article written by someone who has never read a book or knows what their talking about
 
2012-11-01 06:22:19 PM  
I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.
 
2012-11-01 06:24:02 PM  

jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.


He became an asshole long before his 20/20 days.
 
2012-11-01 06:25:26 PM  

jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).


So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?
 
2012-11-01 06:27:50 PM  
schrodinger
jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.
The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.
He became an asshole long before his 20/20 days.


Wasn't it Stossel that had his ears boxed when he was interviewing someone unwilling and probably roided up WWF wrestler?
 
2012-11-01 06:28:10 PM  

jake3988: I miss the days when he was on 20/20 and sensible.

The man left 20/20 and just decided to become an asshole for a living.


I liked him on 20/20 also (ashamed to admit it). Now, I just think he is a complete dipshiat.
 
2012-11-01 06:31:47 PM  

Egalitarian: my capital-L Libertarian relative is in love with John Stossel. He also gleefully takes advantage of Medicare, and has made ample use of NPR and PBS in is lifetime.


I'll bet he drives on roads too.

Egalitarian: On a recent visit, he left out a Stossel book on a table. I flipped through it and saw a chapter on Title IX. Really? REALLY?


IIRC, the argument against Title IX is that if you don't subsidize unsustainable girls' sports programs, you're not allowed to have boys' sports programs. Schools have to bleed millions to stay in compliance with Title IX. It simply doesn't take into account the lack of public interest in (paying to watch) most women's sports. Sometimes it kills off entire athletic programs.
 
2012-11-01 06:32:50 PM  
schrodinger
jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).
So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?
Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


I think he is attempting to make the point that if private insurers priced him out of the market then he wouldn't be force to be an asshole and ownhome on the beach which he does not believe is economically rational. But since he can he will.

Ignoring that private insurance may or may not pick this up, and this is his second home, unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.

/Just help him to stop being a selfish asshole. That is what he wants.
 
2012-11-01 06:33:34 PM  

schrodinger: So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


Nope, he's saying that thanks to the poor saps forced to pay taxes to fund the government insurance program, he gets to have this nice house on the beach at a much lower cost. Thanks, all you saps out there! And by the way, this program should be abolished.
 
2012-11-01 06:34:32 PM  

Enemabag Jones: unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.


like?
 
2012-11-01 06:38:50 PM  
jigger
Enemabag Jones: unlike some people whom need this for a primary home.
like?


No I don't, why do you ask?
 
2012-11-01 06:40:40 PM  
John needs to go suck a bag of dicks.
So his stupid mouth will be occupied with something better to do than spew shiat.
 
2012-11-01 07:13:02 PM  
FTA

Unlike private companies, the government can also require homeowners in flood hazard areas to purchase insurance

So it's quite possible that he's required to participate in the insurance directly.

Secondly, if the Federal government chooses to subsidize the risks of coastal homes, that's not his doing and he's under no obligation to avoid it - he like everyone else is on the hook for taxes to pay for the subsidy even if he didn't own such property. Liberals who favor higher government spending don't send the Feds more money than they owe, and they still take every deduction they qualify for.

The hypocrisy claim is BS, but that doesn't stop the kneejerk leftie FarKoser wharglebargle.
 
2012-11-01 07:19:05 PM  
yeah, few things annoy me more then "Libertarians" who preach the virtues of "small government", all while cashing the checks from government programs. But, a nuanced view of the world doesn't lend itself to book sales or face time on the tube, so we get the morons we've got.
 
2012-11-01 07:30:54 PM  

Emposter: Libertarians are like unicorns, except people take them less seriously.

Modern libertarians are just like the idiot tea-partiers who continue their nonsense claims that they're a real, separate party. Oh, sure, we vote for republicans, we run in Republican primaries, we caucus with Republicans, but we're totally independent. We're not Republicans at all.

Just more Republicans ashamed to be called Republicans.

/please, someone say Gary Johnson


Gary Johnson. He is certainly a much better human being than Mitt Romney, he was successful in business without the advantages of vast inherited wealth, and the complete absence of scruples that characterize all of Romney's ventures,, he was a very competent governor who left office with high approval rates, again, completely unlike Romney. And yet the GOP picked Romney. Whatever you want to say about libertarians, they didn't sink to that level of flailing disgusting failure.
 
2012-11-01 07:42:09 PM  

knobmaker: Gary Johnson. He is certainly a much better human being than Mitt Romney, he was successful in business without the advantages of vast inherited wealth, and the complete absence of scruples that characterize all of Romney's ventures,, he was a very competent governor who left office with high approval rates, again, completely unlike Romney. And yet the GOP picked Romney. Whatever you want to say about libertarians, they didn't sink to that level of flailing disgusting failure.


i.imgur.com

Seems legit.
 
2012-11-01 08:12:08 PM  
Came for a variation on "fark you, pay me, that's why." Explanation, leaving....satisfied and saddened.
 
2012-11-01 08:53:18 PM  
I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?
 
2012-11-01 09:51:28 PM  

Bloody William: schrodinger: Garet Garrett: Stossel is forced to pay for an insurance policy he doesn't want.

John Stossel is being forced to own beach front property against his will?

Does he have a mortgage? Because private enterprise might be forcing him to get an insurance policy he doesn't want, if the house is at risk of flooding. The bank might require NFIP protection.


The bank requires flood insurance. NFIP just allows him to get it at below market rates, subsidized by everyone else who didn't buy a house in a flood plain.

Get rid of NFIP and make people pay fair market rates for insurance. An insurer WILL provide a policy at some rate. No reason that taxpayers should give some a subsidy just because they bought a house in a risky area.
 
2012-11-01 10:37:12 PM  

schrodinger: jedihirsch: Stossel explained this back in 2004 when asked about it. He said he would rather not have the government doing it, but as a rational human being, if free money is being given out, you take it. He also pointed out that since the govt took it over, private insurance move out, and that he has no other option due to the governments policies (in fact this is the general libertarian position as written in every libertarian publication, if the govt forces out the private and takes it over themselves, then you have no other option but to take govt money).

So John Stossel is being forced to own beach property against his will? He doesn't have the option to stop living there?

Or is John Stossel's point that if government wasn't providing insurance on his non-optional beach property, then private insurance would surely fill in the gap?


He's saying that private insurers would do it if the govt didn't force them out of the market. And since he has no other option if he wants to live there, he'll take whats available until the situation changes. And as he says, even if you disagree with it, if they are offering the money, why not take it
 
2012-11-01 10:44:41 PM  

LoneWolf343: I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?


It's the use of tax money for that purpose in the first place. It wouldn't work if everyone just got reimbursed.
 
2012-11-01 11:05:43 PM  

jedihirsch: He's saying that private insurers would do it if the govt didn't force them out of the market.


So right off the bat, he makes a false claim. The only reason why government is involved is because private insurance either wasn't wiling to fill in the gap, or because they went belly up and unable to pay whenever something bad happened.

And since he has no other option if he wants to live there, he'll take whats available until the situation changes.

Why doesn't he have the option to simply move?

And as he says, even if you disagree with it, if they are offering the money, why not take it

Because it makes him a hypocrite.
 
2012-11-02 12:07:15 AM  
CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?
 
2012-11-02 12:32:23 AM  
Another so-called "libertarian" who is a hyprocritical jerk.
 
2012-11-02 12:33:18 AM  

SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?


Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me $50.
 
2012-11-02 01:12:38 AM  

Bucky Katt: Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me back my $50.


Correction - you left out two words, I put them back in for you.
 
2012-11-02 01:41:13 AM  

SunsetLament: Bucky Katt: Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me back my $50.

Correction - you left out two words, I put them back in for you.


Next up: John Stossel deposits 10 cents in the "leave a penny" jar. Then demands that the cashier give him back $50.
 
2012-11-02 02:14:51 AM  
Dear Mr. Stossel,

I believe there is a certain thing you are desperately lacking, so I found just the person to give this thing to you:

i28.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-02 05:03:14 AM  
I liked Stossel's reports on 20/20.

He's gone soooooo downhill ever since he traded his journalism in for "opinionism."
 
2012-11-03 11:32:25 AM  

Bucky Katt: SunsetLament: CONSERVATIVE: I don't believe the government should take money from one person and give it to another.

LIBERAL: I confiscate your $5 on behalf of the government. I now implement a policy where the government gives $2 to every person.

CONSERVATIVE: Give me my $2. I want my whole $5, but at least you only screwed me out of $3.

LIBERAL: Hypocrite! How dare you criticize the government when you take from it!!?!?

Conservative: My property is wet. I demand you give me $50.


LIBERAL: Make it $100. But we split it down the middle and put it on our children's tab.

CONSERVATIVE: Done!
 
2012-11-03 05:42:55 PM  

skullkrusher: LoneWolf343: I never understood the "libertarian" position of the state returning some of the money it took in taxes in the event of an emergency. You're getting your money back, so what are you biatching about?

It's the use of tax money for that purpose in the first place. It wouldn't work if everyone just got reimbursed.


Oh, alright, then we just won't give that tax money back.
 
Displayed 37 of 187 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report