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.

(National Review)   Libertarianism is just an ideal   (nationalreview.com) divider line 1480
    More: Followup, modern, communist state  
•       •       •

12211 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jun 2013 at 11:39 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1480 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 09:48:05 PM
LORJ MAIN PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS MARKET NO GOOD AT ADJUSTING NON-ROCK EXTERNALITIES. TRAGEDY OF COMMON CAVE REPEATS FROM MAXIMIZATION OF SHORT TERM ROCK PROFIT INSTEAD OF SUSTAINABLE ROCK DEVELOPMENT.

HEALTH CARE EXAMPLE. COMMUNICABLE DISEASE AM WHOLE TRIBE PROBLEM. LESS PLAGUES GOOD.

LORJ FAVOR SOCIAL LIBERTARIANISM. FISCAL LIBERTARIAN POLICIES NO PREVENT MARKET FAILURES. LIBERTARIANISM LIKE COMMUNISM IN NO NOTICING THAT CAVEMEN ARE IRRATIONAL.
 
2013-06-14 09:58:35 PM

SmackLT: Mercutio74: One thing I love about this thread is how people will add 1 to the total amount of comments to express their disgust that the comment count is so high.  Also, anyone who thinks this thread is more about libertarianism vs reality than it is about spontaneous group caveman language is probably not looking carefully enough at the Fark demographic.

[i.imgur.com image 460x300]


TONDA LOVE THOMAS TURGOOSE IN MOVING CAVE PAINTING "THIS IS ENGLAND". NOT IN PEEPEE-TOUCH WAY, JUST ENJOY.
 
2013-06-14 10:04:09 PM

Le Roi en Jaune: LORJ MAIN PROBLEM WITH LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT IS MARKET NO GOOD AT ADJUSTING NON-ROCK EXTERNALITIES. TRAGEDY OF COMMON CAVE REPEATS FROM MAXIMIZATION OF SHORT TERM ROCK PROFIT INSTEAD OF SUSTAINABLE ROCK DEVELOPMENT.

HEALTH CARE EXAMPLE. COMMUNICABLE DISEASE AM WHOLE TRIBE PROBLEM. LESS PLAGUES GOOD.

LORJ FAVOR SOCIAL LIBERTARIANISM. FISCAL LIBERTARIAN POLICIES NO PREVENT MARKET FAILURES. LIBERTARIANISM LIKE COMMUNISM IN NO NOTICING THAT CAVEMEN ARE IRRATIONAL.


TONDA SAD THAT WORD TAKEN TO FLOATING PLATFORM IN BIG WATER, TURNED INTO DIFFERENT WORD THAN MEANS ON REST OF ROCK.

TONDA ALSO MAKE KICKSTARTER FOR MOVING CAVE PAINTING "ATLAS SHRUGGED 3: BEDROCK JUBILEE"
 
m00
2013-06-14 10:12:50 PM

Aldon: On Obamacare: it's not a socialist policy, this is a misconception. Even from a libertarian standpoint, Obamacare isfarworse than state healthcare... because state healthcare is government providing a service. Governments already do this, we're just arguing which services they should and shouldn't provide.

Again, you are taking a liberal point of view. Any liberal would have wrote the same about Obamacare, yet currently the majority of libertarians vote with and agree with conservatives. Frankly on most every subject (especially Healthcare) you listed today, you agree with the liberal point of view, and every "conservative" would opposed to your views. So what do you find yourself voting for more, people who call themselves conservative, or people that call themselves moderate or liberal?


I want to quibble with this, but let me explain first where I'm coming from.

Governments provide services. Unless one is an anarchist, it's what they do. Libertarians (and myself) believe the most important services protect individual freedoms, liberty, collective freedoms, and free-market-dynamics so this would include contract law and so forth. In short, the Federal Government is there to make sure cops don't ransack your home without a warrant, corporations don't dump toxic waste that leaks onto your property, banks don't just steal your money and say "whoops," and when you make a contract with someone if they don't live up to their end there is some kind of recourse. Again, I'm not an anarchist. Liberals and conservatives each believe that different services are the important thing. Then government needs to tax to provide these services, and there is disagreement where those taxes should come from. And I'm perfectly fine with reasonable people disagreeing where governments should tax, and what services should government provide.

Obamcare is so deadly because it's not a service. It compels you to purchase healthcare from a provide provider. It's like... allowing a corporation to tax you. Can you see how this is a completely different proposition?

So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?

I haven't voted in Federal elections since 2000, because the only people on the ballot are cynical career politicians that seem to have no internally consistent ideology. Lets take Keynesian economics as an example. Basically, you borrow during a weak economy (and don't waste the money on dumb things) and then once your economy is strong you pay off that debt. Do you see any self-styled liberal politician doing this since Clinton? No... it's borrow during a weak economy, borrow more during a strong economy... and calling THAT Keynesian. I'm not a Keynesian but I would vote for an actual Keynesian over a that nonsense, because at least it's within the realm of rational thought.

Last local election I voted in, it was L, G or I... based on the candidate. We're headed off a cliff, and the lesser of two evils isn't going to cut it.

How perverse is this?
Democrats: lets borrow money during both strong and weak economies to give handouts to wall-street/banks, insurance companies, and (some) energy companies. Then we'll throw a very small bone to the poor.
Republicans: lets borrow money during both strong and weak economies to give handouts to wall-street/banks, military contractors, and (other) energy companies. Then we'll tell the middle class that very small bone the Democrats threw to the poor is what's destroying their jobs.

Honestly. Calling this out doesn't make me less of a Libertarian. At this point, if I thought someone was an actual liberal or an actual conservative with consistent logic that wasn't cherry-picked to justify paying off lobbyists I would probably vote for him/her. But our politicians don't believe in anything other than business as usual, which is screwing us as usual.
 
2013-06-14 10:16:12 PM
For an ideology that you guys claim to be a joke with no significance in society, its strange how this has 10-15 times more comments than other stories. You statists had to get together and reassure one another that the big, bad libertarians would never take over and then not bother you?
 
2013-06-14 10:21:04 PM

danwinkler: For an ideology that you guys claim to be a joke with no significance in society, its strange how this has 10-15 times more comments than other stories. You statists had to get together and reassure one another that the big, bad libertarians would never take over and then not bother you?


YOU NOT UNDERSTAND CONCEPT OF FUN EITHER, KINDA LIKE BUNNYGOD, WHO MAUG ATE.

HOWEVER, YOU NOT SMELL EDIBLE.

*buries you in hole*
 
KIA
2013-06-14 10:21:33 PM

brnt00: BRONT WAS PROMISED ROCK TRICKLE DOWN MANY MOONS AGO. WHAR ROCK TRICKLE DOWN?!?


YOU CHECK CAVE FLOOR, SEE SAND?  THAT BIG ROCKS TRICKLED DOWN LONG TIME.
 
KIA
2013-06-14 10:29:58 PM
KONK HEAR TALE, TELL YOU NOW:

STRONG CAVIE NAME JHED
LIVE ON TALL ROCKS GOT NO FOOD
HIM THROW ROCK TO MAKE FOOD DEAD
MISS FOOD, HIT GROUND, BUBBLE GOOD

OTHER TRIBE GIVE MANY ROCK
JHED MOVE TO BEVERLY
HILLS
WATER HOLES
FAKE CAVIES

NOW LEAVE, BYE
YOU DO SAME
DONT COME BACK
 
2013-06-14 10:31:04 PM

gameshowhost: demaL-demaL-yeH: GIVE TO CHOOSE-BETTER-ETCHING CAVEPERSON.

TONDA OWN HIM TOO.


TONDA SMOKE MUCH ROCK. TONDA EAT BAD FUNGUS. TONDA EAT ROTTEN RYE SEED.
 
2013-06-14 10:43:40 PM

m00: Last local election I voted in, it was L, G or I... based on the candidate. We're headed off a cliff, and the lesser of two evils isn't going to cut it.


M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.
 
2013-06-14 10:47:58 PM
ETCHING MAKE TOR LAFF ON SLAB. SKY MAN BE PRAISED.
 
m00
2013-06-14 10:55:49 PM

gameshowhost: M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.


Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.
 
2013-06-14 11:05:52 PM
MAUG BORED WITH m00.

EAT?
 
2013-06-14 11:08:04 PM
I always though the purest form of Libertarianism was the pirate ship of the early 1800s.
Everyone is paid in gold.  No laws, but just a code.  The guy with the most gold is in charge.
 
m00
2013-06-14 11:31:40 PM

rev. dave: I always though the purest form of Libertarianism was the pirate ship of the early 1800s.
Everyone is paid in gold.  No laws, but just a code.  The guy with the most gold is in charge.


Um, pirate ships elected their captains.
 
2013-06-14 11:32:03 PM
OK, all y'all, it has to be said...

lh4.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-06-14 11:34:02 PM
Posting to post.
 
2013-06-14 11:54:12 PM

m00: gameshowhost: M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.


TONDA PUT FACE IN HAND NOW.
 
2013-06-14 11:55:17 PM
I have to say, this has been one of the best thread derailments since the Pickle Incident.  Bravo to everyone.  :)
 
2013-06-14 11:55:56 PM

gameshowhost: m00: gameshowhost: M00 NOT UNDERSTAND GAME THEORY AND "MINIMIZE LOSS" STRATEGY. VOTE FOR NEVER-WINNER ONLY HELP WORST CANDIDATE.

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.

For example, Obama's victory has helped the Republican party politically and financially. That Mitt Romney was even on the ticket has helped the Democratic politicians, he was so bad. I will even go as far as to say Republicans would rather have an Obama in the White House than a fiscally responsible Republican that might scale back executive power.

There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.

TONDA PUT FACE IN HAND NOW.


SHAKA WHEN THE WALLS FELL
 
2013-06-14 11:59:30 PM
Anything to get the pendulum swinging in the other direction.
Down the establishment.
 
2013-06-15 12:03:55 AM

m00: gameshowhost: M00 

Oh, I understand game theory. But I believe the political parties are gaming the game theory by deliberately offering up worse and worse (read: more beholden to special interests) candidates. Game theory assumes the officiator of the game is a neutral process. If you pick A and the other guy picks A, you get $5.This is game theory where the researchers present themselves as opponents, but then work together to change the game after you've made your choice.


There are two sides, but it's not R v D. Its us (voters) vs government. If you vote for the establishment candidate, you lose every time. Obama's marketing was genius because he presented himself in 2008 as anti-establishment, but ended up governing like Bush.


LORJ SAY M00 MAKE COMMON MISTAKE. THIRD PARTY FAIL BUILD GROUND GAME.MUST BE LIKE GREEN PARTY IN GER-MAN TRIBE. SMALL CAVE CHIEFS AND WOLFDOG CATCHERS BEFORE SEEKING TO BE BIG CHIEF.

LORJ AGREE DONKEE PARTY AND MAMMOTH PARTY DUOPOLY MAKE FALSE WAR TALK, AM ACTUAL SECRET FRIENDS. ILLUSION OF CHOICE ADVANCED BY TAR OLIGARCHY AND STONE AXE-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
 
2013-06-15 12:05:42 AM

InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost.   The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density.    I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole?  Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta?    Ever been there?   You would love it.


No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool.    No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun.    No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant.   No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

That's a good start.   Also, sounds like a good business opportunity to clean things up.

And to the surprise of no one, we once again find "libertarianism" being used as a thinly veiled disguise for sociopathy.


You'll be back tomorrow to biatch about corporate welfare.   Businesses big and small, as well as people should have to learn to be self reliant.
 
2013-06-15 12:09:27 AM

RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: RobertBruce: InmanRoshi: Every libertarian utopia somehow revolves around people living off the land in some rural outpost.   The trouble is commerce and capitalism encourages population density.    I'd love to hear how libertarianism works in a condensed urban environment where 9 million people are forced to share a finite amount of resources and land.

Same as now, except without laws other than those that protect body and property.

So basically a 3rd world shiate hole?  Gotcha.

What's your alternative:?

How about the opposite of Calcutta?    Ever been there?   You would love it.


No stupid government forcing you to pay for things like community housing, so the poor just sleep and shiat in the streets literally turning the entire city into a gigantic cesspool.    No Obamacare, so the sick and dying just decompose out in the sun.    No public policy, so malaria and AIDS just runs rampant.   No major public projects, so limited public transportation leaving 15 million people living in a congested polluted mess.

Just everyone out there living their own lives, just totally free from the tyranny of government thugs.

That's a good start.   Also, sounds like a good business opportunity to clean things up.

And to the surprise of no one, we once again find "libertarianism" being used as a thinly veiled disguise for sociopathy.

You'll be back tomorrow to biatch about corporate welfare.   Businesses big and small, as well as people should have to learn to be self reliant.


and in less than 3 posts, you utterly destroyed all of the knowledge and insight that cybrwzrd and many others have tried to impart on this (admittedly derailed) conversation.  For every myth that they tried to dispel about libertarians, objectivists, and the like, you just reincarnated them as zombies.

Nice work.
 
2013-06-15 12:13:10 AM

bonobo73: Clemkadidlefark: Authoritarianism needs two legs to march forward over the killing fields that was human liberty.

A Right leg and a Left leg.

Where you live is as close to a modern libertarian society as I can imagine, so what are you whining about exactly?


Geez. Seriously? Stating the facts is whining? You must have a lot of fun at your Solipsism Concerts.
 
m00
2013-06-15 12:13:46 AM

Le Roi en Jaune: LORJ SAY M00 MAKE COMMON MISTAKE. THIRD PARTY FAIL BUILD GROUND GAME.MUST BE LIKE GREEN PARTY IN GER-MAN TRIBE. SMALL CAVE CHIEFS AND WOLFDOG CATCHERS BEFORE SEEKING TO BE BIG CHIEF.

LORJ AGREE DONKEE PARTY AND MAMMOTH PARTY DUOPOLY MAKE FALSE WAR TALK, AM ACTUAL SECRET FRIENDS. ILLUSION OF CHOICE ADVANCED BY TAR OLIGARCHY AND STONE AXE-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.


Caveman talk meme is over I hope :p

Well, I think real reason neither the Democrats nor Republicans are seriously trying to reverse Citizens United as is it pumps so much money into the system that even local council and dog catcher positions become untenable for 3rd parties. It's scary when you make a list of where the two parties take similar courses of actions (the rhetoric will be different though).
 
2013-06-15 12:15:26 AM
HU-BE COME
HU-BE PLEASED
HU-BE WEEP TEARS AND LAUGH
SKY GODS PLEASED--NO MORE RAIN FIRE AND LIGHTNING ON CAVES

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.
 
2013-06-15 12:28:31 AM

COMALite J: the whole concept of "States' Rights" is a false concept right from the get-go. States don't have Rights. Any Rights. Neither does the Federal Government. Only Natural Persons (individually or collectively as "the People") have, or can have, Rights!


No one has any Rights.

Rights do not exist. You can only do things so long as others let you.
 
2013-06-15 12:31:30 AM
Upon reading many of these posts, its clear that many of you oh-so-smart libertarian haters don't seem to understand that libertarianism and anarchy are not synonyms
 
2013-06-15 12:31:55 AM

m00: So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?


I don't understand your point, your definition of libertarianism on this subject goes against all of modern libertarian economic theory.  Partial market participation (Obamacare) would at least be equal to if not better than total government takeover of the health care industry to modern libertarian philosophy.  In Obamacare there is a least a competitive market within the constraints of the system.

So you have your own definition of libertarianism, it doesn't sound like a very consistant philosophy in my opinion.  I guess you would conveniently claim no country has even come close of trying your libertarian system because you continually dodge the question of an example of libertarianism working in the real world.

I'm a reasonable person, so far Obamacare (without even being fully implemented yet) has meant lower insurance premiums projected for next year, I have no fear that my pre-existing condition son will be dropped from insurance coverage and the last three years my insurance has not increased in price (unlike the previous three years).  Will it be the best solution? I dunno, but it already kicks the ass of the previous system of taxpayers paying for freeloaders using the emergency room and insurance companies and hospitals having free reign of a market that literally means life or death of people...  I'm sure there will be many flaws, but that is to be expected, just like anything else it will need to be continually improved.  It is easy to say something sucks, when you (libertarians) didn't come to the table with any solutions when asked to participate in the debate.
 
2013-06-15 12:49:38 AM
THIS WHAT NO OOK NOTS REALLY THINK:

GRUNG ELDERS GO AWAY FOR SOLSTICE
LEFT SHACKLES FOR MAMMOTH UNLOCK
GRUNG NOT THINK THEY MIND
GRUNG TAKE MAMMOTH GO FOR RIDE
SHOW MAMMOTH TO FRIEND IN NEXT CAVE
THINK ABOUT RIDE MAMMOTH AROUND MOUNTAIN
GO RIDE BECAUSE OKAY
SO LISTEN
STOP MAMMOTH NEAR MAMMOTH CROSSING
SEE PRETTY CAVEGIRL
PRETEND TO HAVE TALK WITH SKY WIZARD
MAKE MAMMOTH TRUMPET
PRETTY CAVEGIRL STOP
SHE ASK IF MAMMOTH TRUMPET FOR HER
GRUNG SAY YES
GRUNG ASK HER TO TAKE RIDE ON MAMMOTH
PRETTY CAVEGIRL HAVE DOUBTS BUT GRUNG CONVINCE BECAUSE MAMMOTH NICE
PRETTY CAVEGIRL CLIMB ON
GRUNG AND CAVEGIRL GO GET BRONTOSAURUS RIBS AT MAMMOTH-THRU
CAVEGIRL HUNGRY OTHER WAYS, ASK IF MAMMOTH GO FAST
OF COURSE MAMMOTH GO FAST
WE GO FAST
WE STOPPED BY MAMMOTH WITH FLASHY ROCK HAT
GRUNG FIND OUT CAVEGIRL ACTUAL GIRL, NOT CAVEWOMAN
CAVEMAN WITH FLASHY ROCK ON CHEST-SASH TAKE GRUNG TO SMALL BARRED CAVE
CONTACT TRIBE ELDERS
GRUNG FEAR ABUSE
GRUNG ASK TRIBE ELDERS HOW TRIP
ELDERS NOT HAPPY
ELDERS GIVE GRUNG ABUSE HE FEARS
ELDERS JUST NOT UNDERSTAND
 
2013-06-15 01:06:42 AM
     99 PROBLEMS

IF YOU HAVE MATE PROBLEMS OOK FEEL BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONE  
OOK HAVE 99 PROBLEMS, ANGRY WOMAN NOT ONE
OOK GOT ROCK PATROL OUT ON AXE PATROL  
TRYING TO MAKE SURE OOK'S CAIRN IS CLOSED  
CAVE CRITICS SAY OOK IS "ROCKS PELTS MATES"  
OOK FROM THE CAVE, WHAT STUPID FACTS YOU STATE  
IF YOU GREW UP WITH HOLES IN THE SOLES OF YOUR TOES  
YOU'D CELEBRATE THE MINUTE YOU CAN EAT ROASTED MOLES  
OOK LIKE fark CRITICS YOU CAN KISS OOK'S ASSHOLE  
IF YOU DON'T LIKE LYRICS YOU CAN WAIT TILL IT OVER  
GOT MEAT WITH HOWLER CHIEFS IF OOK DON'T SING THEY SHOW  
THEY DON'T SING OOK'shiatS WELL OOK DON'T GIVE A shiat SO  
RAP CAVE ETCHINGS TRY AND USE MY HAIRY ASS  
SO TRADERS CAN GIVE ETCHERS MORE ROCKS FOR ADS...MATERS  
OOK DON"T KNOW WHAT YOU TAKE OOK AS  
OR UNDERSTAND SMART THAT OOK HAS  
OOK FROM NAKED TO RAGS CAVEMAN OOK AIN'T DUMB  
OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE
99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE


IF YOU HAVE CAVEGIRL PROBLEMS OOK FEELS BAD FOR YOU YOUNG ONE
OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE


THE YEAR IS... WHAT IS YEAR? OOK'S SACK IS RAW,
LOOK BEHIND IT IS TRIBE ELDERS farkIN LAW,
OOK GOT TWO CHOICES YALL PULL OVER MY DINOSAUR
OR BOUNCE ON THE DOUBLE PUT THE DINO LEGS TO THE FLOOR
NOW OOK AIN'T TRYING TO SEE NO VALLEY CHASE WITH OOK
PLUS OOK HAVE A FEW ROCKS, OOK CAN FIGHT THESE MOOKS,
SO OOK PULL OVER TO THE SIDE OF THE ROAD
AND OOK HEARD "YOUNGLING DO YOU KNOW WHY STOPPING YOU FOR?"
CAUSE OOK YOUNG AND OOK CRO-MAGNON AND OOK'S BROW REAL LOW?
DO OOK LOOK LIKE WIZARD, OOK DON'T KNOW!
AM OOK UNDER ARREST OR SHOULD OOK GUESS SOME MORE?
"WELL YOU WAS DOING FIVE IN A PLACE THAT'S FOUR
DINO RIDER BADGE AND REGISTRATION AND STEP OFF THE DINOSAUR
ARE YOU CARRYING AXE I KNOW A LOT OF YOU ARE"
OOK AIN'T STEPPING OUT OF shiat, OOK'S THINGS ARE LEGIT
"DO YOU MIND IF ME LOOK AROUND YOUR DINOSAUR A LITTLE BIT?"
WELL OOK'S SACK IS TIED UP SO IS OOK'S OTHER SACK
AND OOK KNOW TRIBE'S CODE, SO YOU GOING TO NEED ELDER'S PERMISSION FOR THAT
"AREN'T YOU SHARP AS A THORN SOME TYPE OF ARGUER OR SOMETHING?
"OR SOMEBODY IMPORTANT OR SOMETHING?"
NAH OOK AIN'T PASSED ELDER TEST BUT OOK KNOW A LITTLE BIT
ENOUGH THAT YOU WON'T TABOO BY SEARCHING OOK'S shiat
"WE'LL SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE WHEN WOLFDOGS COME"
OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS ANGRY MATE AIN'T ONE
HIT OOK!


NOW ONCE UPON A MOON NOT LONG AGO
A CAVEMAN LIKE OOK HAD TO STRONG ARM A CAVEHO
THIS IS NOT CAVEHOE LIKE IN SENSE OF HAVING A WETHOLE
BUT A WETHOLE HAVING NO SKY-CHIEF PUNISHED SENSE, TRY AND PUSH ME
OOK TRY TO IGNORE HIM AND TALK TO GREAT SKY CHIEF
PRAY FOR HIM, SOME FOOLS JUST LOVE TO MAKE GRIEF,
YOU KNOW THE TYPE LOUD AS AN AVALANCHE
BUT WOULDN'T BUST A TWIG IN BIG FIGHT WITH BRANCH
HE AND HIS BOYS GOING TO BE YAPPING TO CAVE CAPTAIN
AND THERE OOK GO TRAPPED IN THE SHAME CAVE AGAIN
BACK THROUGH CAVE SYSTEM WITH RIFF RAFF AGAIN
MUSHROOM FIENDS ON CAVE FLOOR SCRATCHING AGAIN
SMOKE SIGNALLERS WITH SMOKE BLANKETS SNAPPING THEM
ELDER TRIED TO GIVE A CAVEMAN THE SHAFT AGAIN
MANY PEBBLES NEEDED FOR BAIL CAUSE I'M CRO-MAGNON
ALL BECAUSE THIS FOOL WAS HARASSING THEM
TRYING TO PLAY THE BOY LIKES HE WAS SUGAR CANE STEM
BUT NOTHING SWEET ABOUT HOW I HOLD MY ROCK
OOK GOT 99 PROBLEMS BEING FEMALE WOLFDOG OOK NOT
HIT OOK


YOU CRAZY FOR THIS KROG!
IT'S YOUR BOY
 
2013-06-15 01:18:16 AM
NIKTO WORK FOR GOVERNMENT, SO NIKTO GETTING KICK OUT OF MOST REPLIES.

SOME CAVEMEN VERY GOOD MAKING SOUND LIKE KNOW WHAT TALK ABOUT. BUT TRUST NIKTO...YOU NO.

NIKTO THINK SOME CAVEMEN WANT SOUND SMART. WHEN IN REALITY CAVEMEN NO NOT WHAT CAVEMEN TALK ABOUT.

THIS HOW BAD INFORMATION GET PASSED AROUND. IF YOU NO NOT ABOUT TOPIC, NOT MAKE CAVEMEN SOUND LIKE CAVEMEN DO. BECAUSE SOME CAVEMEN BELIEVE ANYTHING CAVEMEN HEAR.
 
2013-06-15 01:33:31 AM

Aldon: m00: So, I am against federal government run healthcare. I don't believe we should pay a federal tax and get a heathcare card and go to clinics set up by the government for treatment. But I also see how a perfectly reasonable person might think this is a service federal government should provide. With Obamacare, I don't see how any reasonable person could want this (unless you own an insurance or pharmaceutical company that has leverage to get government contracts). Do you see what I'm saying?

I don't understand your point, your definition of libertarianism on this subject goes against all of modern libertarian economic theory.  Partial market participation (Obamacare) would at least be equal to if not better than total government takeover of the health care industry to modern libertarian philosophy.  In Obamacare there is a least a competitive market within the constraints of the system.

So you have your own definition of libertarianism, it doesn't sound like a very consistant philosophy in my opinion.  I guess you would conveniently claim no country has even come close of trying your libertarian system because you continually dodge the question of an example of libertarianism working in the real world.

I'm a reasonable person, so far Obamacare (without even being fully implemented yet) has meant lower insurance premiums projected for next year, I have no fear that my pre-existing condition son will be dropped from insurance coverage and the last three years my insurance has not increased in price (unlike the previous three years).  Will it be the best solution? I dunno, but it already kicks the ass of the previous system of taxpayers paying for freeloaders using the emergency room and insurance companies and hospitals having free reign of a market that literally means life or death of people...  I'm sure there will be many flaws, but that is to be expected, just like anything else it will need to be continually improved.  It is easy to say something sucks, when ...


Alright. How about criminalizing lobbyist money. How about either a pure socialist healthcare system, or a pure pay as you go free market system. I prefer the socialist method as it removes profit driven by human suffering.
 
2013-06-15 01:45:16 AM

m00: Zerochance: Yes , because Republicans have yielded absolutely no power in the last ten years.

So you're saying that despite a Democrat controlled Senate and a two-term Democratic President, all of the NSA stuff (even the new powers granted under Obama) and all of the drone stuff, and all of the expansion of executive power... that's Republican's fault. In 2006 when Democrats took control of BOTH the House AND the Senate... unbalanced budget, war on drugs, corporate handouts... Republicans fault.

I got that right?


You seem to think the Democrats are the libbiest libs who ever libbed and that they don't have some seriously embarrassing right -wing members from the south and and particularly in the state of Michigan.

But by all means, try to make it look like transitioning from the oppressive corporate-military industrial complex ideology is easy work.
 
2013-06-15 02:03:48 AM

hubiestubert: HU-BE COME
HU-BE PLEASED
HU-BE WEEP TEARS AND LAUGH
SKY GODS PLEASED--NO MORE RAIN FIRE AND LIGHTNING ON CAVES

/In seriousness: THIS is why I keep coming back here, y'all are nuts and goofs, but all right folks. Thanks for this: we needed it. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you are perhaps a smelly, ill tempered, and sometimes inappropriate bunch of ingrates, asshats, pervs and malcontents, but that's why I like y'all.


I appreciate the fact that the greened link was so inanely stupid, it made more sense to devolve into neolithic-speak to mock it.

I wish I could've thrown in on this thread earlier but my crazy day at work got in the way. Ah well, I got a few laughs reading back .Thanks guys. :D
 
2013-06-15 02:33:24 AM
SH*T, WHAT MAUG DO NOW?

MAUG HAD FUN HERE.

NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TOSS IN FOR YUKS.
 
2013-06-15 02:39:54 AM

Kittypie070: SH*T, WHAT MAUG DO NOW?

MAUG HAD FUN HERE.

NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TOSS IN FOR YUKS.


HOW MAUG DOIN?

MAUG COME OVER EAT LEFTOVER MAMMOTH AND GATHER BERRIES WHEN FIREBALL COME BACK. GLOG HAVE BIG CLUB AND KNOW MAKE FIRE.
 
2013-06-15 03:28:17 AM
TONDA HOPE THREAD CLOSE RIGHT... NOW
 
2013-06-15 03:46:27 AM

GreatGlavinsGhost: Kittypie070: SH*T, WHAT MAUG DO NOW?

MAUG HAD FUN HERE.

NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TOSS IN FOR YUKS.


HOW MAUG DOIN?

MAUG COME OVER EAT LEFTOVER MAMMOTH AND GATHER BERRIES WHEN FIREBALL COME BACK. GLOG HAVE BIG CLUB AND KNOW MAKE FIRE.


MAUG DOING GOOD.

MAUG CUDDLE GLOG AND MAKE SMALL HYPNOTIC NOISE.
 
2013-06-15 04:42:18 AM
ROG LATE TO PARTY. ROG USE ROADS BUILT HIMSELF. ROG ALSO THINK THAT IF ROC WANTS TO DISCRIMINATE OBSIDIAN OR DIRTY NEANDERTHAL FROM ROG'S MAMMOTH STEAK EATERY ITS ROG'S AMENDMENT RIGHT ON LAW STONE
 
2013-06-15 05:15:33 AM

Kittypie070: GreatGlavinsGhost: Kittypie070: SH*T, WHAT MAUG DO NOW?

MAUG HAD FUN HERE.

NOT KNOW WHAT ELSE TO TOSS IN FOR YUKS.

HOW MAUG DOIN?

MAUG COME OVER EAT LEFTOVER MAMMOTH AND GATHER BERRIES WHEN FIREBALL COME BACK. GLOG HAVE BIG CLUB AND KNOW MAKE FIRE.

MAUG DOING GOOD.

MAUG CUDDLE GLOG AND MAKE SMALL HYPNOTIC NOISE.


YOU GO GET CAVE!
 
2013-06-15 05:52:51 AM
If Romneycare is so horrible and dangerous, why didn't anyone make a single peep about it when the Republicans thought it up in the 90's? Or when Romney installed it in Massachusetts? It was only when Obama liked it so much that he decided to make it national without any changes is when everyone shiat themselves and started crying. Just like with so many other things that they liked or didn't care about until the black Democrat president looks at it.

Remember when Romney promised to destroy "Obamacare" when he became president? Then put it right back up, but since he did it it would be amazing and holy and right because a white Republican did it?
 
2013-06-15 07:40:30 AM
PUNG REGRET NO TIME READ FUNNY CAVE WALL.

PUNG ALSO REGRET GOLDBERG NOT EATEN BY VELOCIRAPTORS.
 
2013-06-15 08:07:32 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: If Romneycare is so horrible and dangerous, why didn't anyone make a single peep about it when the Republicans thought it up in the 90's? Or when Romney installed it in Massachusetts? It was only when Obama liked it so much that he decided to make it national without any changes is when everyone shiat themselves and started crying. Just like with so many other things that they liked or didn't care about until the black Democrat president looks at it.

Remember when Romney promised to destroy "Obamacare" when he became president? Then put it right back up, but since he did it it would be amazing and holy and right because a white Republican did it?


imageshack.us
 
2013-06-15 08:26:16 AM
Am confused...

When did an ideal become something bad to have and strive for?

Is the idea that each person should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, unless they cause harm to others, a bad thing?

/really enjoyed the caveman satire, you guys rock and made me laugh more than I have in weeks
//if you can't laugh at the stereotypes of yourself then you're way to serious and need to relax
///slashies
 
2013-06-15 08:41:22 AM

Clemkadidlefark: bonobo73: Clemkadidlefark: Authoritarianism needs two legs to march forward over the killing fields that was human liberty.

A Right leg and a Left leg.

Where you live is as close to a modern libertarian society as I can imagine, so what are you whining about exactly?

Geez. Seriously? Stating the facts is whining? You must have a lot of fun at your Solipsism Concerts.


Meh, 0.5/10.   You aren't even really trying.    Apparently you've come to the same conclusion I just have -- trolls can't win against an army of cavemen.
 
2013-06-15 09:52:52 AM
MUNG MUNG COME BACK LATER NOW.  GET LAST CAVE ETCHING.
 
2013-06-15 11:07:41 AM

DrPainMD: [b.vimeocdn.com image 640x360]
"My god... it's full of retards."


LORG THINK THIS FUNNY WHEN YOU SAY
 
2013-06-15 11:59:52 AM

fknra: Am confused...

When did an ideal become something bad to have and strive for?

Is the idea that each person should have the right to make their own decisions and choices, unless they cause harm to others, a bad thing?



The thread is mostly dead, so I suppose I can be a little bit serious.  Ideals are not necessarily bad in their own right.  The problem with any political (or religious, or economic, or etc.) ideal arises from the fact that it is based on a desire for the world to be other than it is.  The libertarian ideal is predicated on the belief (first) that all humans are equally capable of taking care of their own interests, (second,) that all humans are capable of determining when they are causing harm to others (and third), that all humans are sufficiently compassionate that they would refrain from causing harm if they knew about the consequences of their actions.

The first assumption is contradicted by the evidence.  There are people who are simply not intellectually or physically capable of providing for themselves.  People with physical handicaps or severe injuries cannot "go it alone" and expect to survive. The third assumption is contradicted by the existence of sociopaths.  While rare, they do exist, and the libertarian ideal that people would avoid harming others by choice simply can't account for them.

The second assumption is the big one.  In a simple agrarian or hunter/gatherer society, an individual's actions typically have only local consequences, so we see the effects of our actions on our neighbors.  In a society like that, individuals might have a close enough approximation to "perfect knowledge" of the consequences of their actions to actually be able to make the right decision.  However, in an industrialized economy, that degree of knowledge is simply not possible.

An example I used last time the subject came up is the effects of logging on salmon fisheries.  Here in the Pacific Northwest, salmon spawn in small rivers, far inland, but when the spawn reach adulthood, they migrate hundreds of miles to the ocean, where they are caught by fishermen.  The spawning streams require forest cover in order to remain cool and clear, for nutrients to grow for the fry to eat until they reach 1 to 3 years old and migrate out to sea.   It's in the best interest of the fishermen that the forests around those streams be left un-cut.  However, the fishermen live hundreds of miles away, and the people who live close to the streams have competing interests.  It is in their interest that the forests are cut down, first to sell the lumber, and second, to expand farmland to feed the local population.

The people who live near the stream will certainly want to cooperate with their neighbors, and clearing the forest is in their best interest and in the best interest of everyone they know.  However, it has a devastating effect on the success of the fishermen who live far away and who are unknown to the farmers.  The farmers and fishermen never meet each other, so the ideal of "compassion" is ruled out just by the fact of distance, but their actions have profound effects on each other's success.  When one's actions have non-local effects, it is simply not possible for an individual to have the kind of knowledge of the consequences that would allow him/her to make an informed decision about whether or not s/he was harming someone else.  In the absence of that type of information, the ideal "make your own choices unless it harms someone else" is simply impossible.

The problem is what economists call "the Tragedy of the Commons."  It is in the best interest of all that shared resources not be depleted, but it is in the best interest of each rational actor to act according to his/her own self-interest to use as much of the shared resources for personal gain as possible.

So far, the only way humans have found to protect the commons is the institution of a centralized decision-making authority that is socially recognized as having the legitimate power to limit people's choices (i.e. a government that can restrict individual rights).  The only alternative I can imagine would require us to change human nature to fit the ideal, rather than adjusting the ideal to fit human nature.

That's the practical problem with ideals.  What seems perfectly reasonable on paper doesn't always correspond to the world around us.

/$0.02
 
Displayed 50 of 1480 comments

First | « | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report