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.

(American Thinker)   "In 2010 the dumb UN voted on a dumb resolution regarding the dumb "human right to water and sanitation." Might I avoid the germane topic of private control over public resources, and instead present many red herrings? Thank you"   (americanthinker.com) divider line 65
    More: Dumbass, DRC, representative democracies, United Nations General Assembly, resources  
•       •       •

1056 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2013 at 7:15 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-01 04:36:26 AM
Um, you kinda need water to live. "American Thinker" indeed.
 
2013-07-01 07:19:13 AM
By Sierra Rayne

Sierra Rayne is my stripper name.
 
2013-07-01 07:19:19 AM
WTF did I just skim?
 
2013-07-01 07:20:40 AM
This is just another attempt by the UN to justify itself as a global government.  Water rights would be used as another wealth redistribution scheme.  Each country would have to log how much water it had versus its population.  The UN would then decide which countries "owed" money to less advantaged nations so that they could improve their water supply.  The UN is trying to latch on to all the things that provide human life - air, water, food, and shelter - and tries to control them.  In their world, everyone should have the same amount of living space, the same amount of food, the same amount of water and their biomass controlled by the state.
 
2013-07-01 07:21:11 AM
The need for drinkable water is far greater than for free speech, I'd imagine.
 
2013-07-01 07:23:01 AM
I've been to Uncle Sam's grave site, so I think I'm slightly better qualified to translate an American "Thinker" article into natural language. Let me attempt:

DHHUUURRRA DAAAAAH DERP DREP HERPA DERP HURRRRRRRR.
 
2013-07-01 07:23:07 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: This is just another attempt by the UN to justify itself as a global government.  Water rights would be used as another wealth redistribution scheme.  Each country would have to log how much water it had versus its population.  The UN would then decide which countries "owed" money to less advantaged nations so that they could improve their water supply.  The UN is trying to latch on to all the things that provide human life - air, water, food, and shelter - and tries to control them.  In their world, everyone should have the same amount of living space, the same amount of food, the same amount of water and their biomass controlled by the state.


That's almost as incoherent as the article.  Nice!
 
2013-07-01 07:23:08 AM

GoodyearPimp: WTF did I just skim?


It is American Thinker. They don't dare to be stupid. They make that their default stance
 
2013-07-01 07:23:30 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: This is just another attempt by the UN to justify itself as a global government.  Water rights would be used as another wealth redistribution scheme.  Each country would have to log how much water it had versus its population.  The UN would then decide which countries "owed" money to less advantaged nations so that they could improve their water supply.  The UN is trying to latch on to all the things that provide human life - air, water, food, and shelter - and tries to control them.  In their world, everyone should have the same amount of living space, the same amount of food, the same amount of water and their biomass controlled by the state.


Random question: Why aren't there any image macros regarding Poe's Law?
 
2013-07-01 07:26:08 AM
All other idiocy aside, as an amateur mathematician/statistician, this idiot puts WAY too much farking faith in the meaningfulness and accuracy of bullshiat metrics like the "democracy index".
 
2013-07-01 07:28:44 AM
once again, American Thinker proves that it is neither.
 
2013-07-01 07:30:53 AM

dookdookdook: Random question: Why aren't there any image macros regarding Poe's Law?


sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-07-01 07:31:00 AM
7 paragraphs in... what the hell is going on?
 
2013-07-01 07:34:52 AM

lordluzr: 7 paragraphs in... what the hell is going on?


All the bad countries voted in favor of people not dying of thirst, therefore we must all support it.
 
2013-07-01 07:35:39 AM
This is a stupid farking article.

The "right to water and sanitation" is another dumb thing, but that's because it supposes some ability to make such a right enactable when no such method, short of trade or war can actually guarantee that right for any particular country, much less people.

But back to the article. What's the point of name-calling the countries who voted for the resolution? Iran's a failed state? I think those ostriches at American Thinker may need to brush up on their Iranian culture and history.
 
2013-07-01 07:39:25 AM
I love it when people who vacation in Branson Missouri attempt to sound knowledgeable on world matters.
 
2013-07-01 07:41:09 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: The "right to water and sanitation" is another dumb thing, but that's because it supposes some ability to make such a right enactable when no such method, short of trade or war can actually guarantee that right for any particular country, much less people.


"Rights" are always cooperative fictions established by society as an inducement to fair and just governance of that society. "Natural Rights" don't hold up as a concept under close scrutiny. Or, to paraphrase George Carlin: "They're not *rights* if someone can take them away. They're *privileges*."
 
2013-07-01 07:45:39 AM
Democracies work well in governing and allocating resources.democracies recognize the democratic risks from such environmental rights efforts, and the authoritarian political motivations

   Access to "water and sanitation" is also not becoming more difficult for the human population. On the contrary, it is improving

Ergo, what is the point for the USA and other fully democratic nations -- who have already achieved essentially complete population coverage for improved water sources and sanitation facilities -- to constitutionalize a UN sponsored right to water and sanitation that could subsequently be used as a Trojan Horse for diminishing other human rights?


// Okay I am sure some Gore NGO types are thinking if only we had a UN mandate along with some tree huggers /actors  out there as the face. Oh man could we rake in the green and by green I mean money. And not one drop of water need to be cleaned as we allocate funding and expenses for travel and conferences and professional fees.
 
2013-07-01 07:47:06 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: This is a stupid farking article.

The "right to water and sanitation" is another dumb thing, but that's because it supposes some ability to make such a right enactable when no such method, short of trade or war can actually guarantee that right for any particular country, much less people.

But back to the article. What's the point of name-calling the countries who voted for the resolution? Iran's a failed state? I think those ostriches at American Thinker may need to brush up on their Iranian culture and history.


For the second time in as many months i find that i have to agree with you on much of what you just said. And it makes me fear for my sanity.
 
2013-07-01 07:47:21 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: This is just another attempt by the UN to justify itself as a global government.  Water rights would be used as another wealth redistribution scheme.  Each country would have to log how much water it had versus its population.  The UN would then decide which countries "owed" money to less advantaged nations so that they could improve their water supply.  The UN is trying to latch on to all the things that provide human life - air, water, food, and shelter - and tries to control them.  In their world, everyone should have the same amount of living space, the same amount of food, the same amount of water and their biomass controlled by the state.


Those idiots at the UN. Why, Nestle should control the water. Water that tastes like chocolate!
 
2013-07-01 07:48:46 AM
Also, didn't we agree to put the "satire" tag on all AT links in a mockingly ironic way? You insult dumbasses by linking them to articles like these.
 
2013-07-01 07:50:13 AM

Smoking GNU: AverageAmericanGuy: This is a stupid farking article.

The "right to water and sanitation" is another dumb thing, but that's because it supposes some ability to make such a right enactable when no such method, short of trade or war can actually guarantee that right for any particular country, much less people.

But back to the article. What's the point of name-calling the countries who voted for the resolution? Iran's a failed state? I think those ostriches at American Thinker may need to brush up on their Iranian culture and history.

For the second time in as many months i find that i have to agree with you on much of what you just said. And it makes me fear for my sanity.


I daresay that as you are getting older, your views are becoming more conservative. It's not sanity you're experiencing, it's wisdom.
 
2013-07-01 07:51:33 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I daresay that as you are getting older, your views are becoming more conservative. It's not sanity you're experiencing, it's wisdom.


And then you go and say something stupid again.
 
2013-07-01 07:53:42 AM

LasersHurt: AverageAmericanGuy: I daresay that as you are getting older, your views are becoming more conservative. It's not sanity you're experiencing, it's wisdom.

And then you go and say something stupid again.


I was just about to say that.
 
2013-07-01 08:05:02 AM

dookdookdook: All other idiocy aside, as an amateur mathematician/statistician, this idiot puts WAY too much farking faith in the meaningfulness and accuracy of bullshiat metrics like the "democracy index".


yeah, it's kind of like those "handwriting analysis/personality test/horoscope" parts of a job interview, on a much larger (and therefore much more embarrassingly stupid) scale.

"Kim Il Sung would never have done that, look at the shape of his skull! But this new guy, he's got a verrry short love line in his palm..."
 
2013-07-01 08:07:24 AM
The only right to water you get is the metaphorical water, from the Fountain of the Water of Life, from the Bible, the  Christian one.  Keep paying your levies for Jesus
 
2013-07-01 08:09:20 AM
When will we be voting for the year's most convoluted Fark headline?
 /Must remember to bookmark this page.
 
2013-07-01 08:14:47 AM

dookdookdook: Random question: Why aren't there any image macros regarding Poe's Law?


i121.photobucket.com

Quick attempt at something.
 
2013-07-01 08:15:24 AM
"If we did everything American voters wanted, we would long ago have replaced our clean water supply with Mountain Dew and Red Bull."

i40.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-01 08:16:30 AM
Meh...  It's America, and nothing can exist here unless someone can profit from it.
 
2013-07-01 08:17:09 AM
Hmmmm...and American Thinker link. I wonder if I should click it.
 
2013-07-01 08:20:11 AM
You can always depend on the wing nuts to get lathered up about things that have exactly zero chance of affect everyday American life.
 
2013-07-01 08:20:59 AM
Affecting. Jeez, proofread much?
 
2013-07-01 08:21:55 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: "If we did everything American voters wanted, we would long ago have replaced our clean water supply with Mountain Dew and Red Bull."

[i40.tinypic.com image 510x356]


also, 51% of us are women, so we'd all be married to Johnny Depp.
 
2013-07-01 08:22:32 AM

Almost Everybody Poops: This is just another attempt by the UN to justify itself as a global government.  Water rights would be used as another wealth redistribution scheme.  Each country would have to log how much water it had versus its population.  The UN would then decide which countries "owed" money to less advantaged nations so that they could improve their water supply.  The UN is trying to latch on to all the things that provide human life - air, water, food, and shelter - and tries to control them.  In their world, everyone should have the same amount of living space, the same amount of food, the same amount of water and their biomass controlled by the state.


lol
 
2013-07-01 08:27:31 AM
So, if I move out into the middle of the desert, it's the governments responsibility to pipe in water to me?  And if they don't they are violating my rights as a human?  What about food, shouldn't they provide that for me too?
 
2013-07-01 08:28:37 AM

God Is My Co-Pirate: "If we did everything American voters wanted, we would long ago have replaced our clean water supply with Mountain Dew and Red Bull."

[i40.tinypic.com image 510x356]


Job creation for the dental industry!
 
2013-07-01 08:28:39 AM

Smoking GNU: Also, didn't we agree to put the "satire" tag on all AT links in a mockingly ironic way? You insult dumbasses by linking them to articles like these.


I liked it; at least in those cases subby was admitting that he knew the link was full of crap and was just submitting it for the lols, unlike some of the trolls who submit this crap to try to piss people off.
 
2013-07-01 08:29:27 AM
 
2013-07-01 08:33:41 AM
I would suggest that a "successful capitalist nation index" (or, for short, "predator nation") would also line up well with countries that opposed this. I am confused that the Swiss would be for it. They tend to be very good little capitalists as well.
 
2013-07-01 08:34:42 AM

Smoking GNU: AverageAmericanGuy: This is a stupid farking article.

The "right to water and sanitation" is another dumb thing, but that's because it supposes some ability to make such a right enactable when no such method, short of trade or war can actually guarantee that right for any particular country, much less people.

But back to the article. What's the point of name-calling the countries who voted for the resolution? Iran's a failed state? I think those ostriches at American Thinker may need to brush up on their Iranian culture and history.

For the second time in as many months i find that i have to agree with you on much of what you just said. And it makes me fear for my sanity.


A stopped clock and all that nonsense...
 
2013-07-01 08:34:59 AM
You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.
 
2013-07-01 08:40:58 AM

PirateKing: You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.


Actually, you can. It's essentially what government is for. It's actually worked out really well in a great many civilizations.
 
2013-07-01 08:42:26 AM
*wtfamireading.jpg*
 
2013-07-01 08:42:52 AM

PirateKing: You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.


Why not?
 
2013-07-01 08:48:24 AM
Meh.  Send them some Brawndo.  It's got electrolytes.  It's what plants crave.
 
2013-07-01 08:52:00 AM

eiger: PirateKing: You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.

Actually, you can. It's essentially what government is for. It's actually worked out really well in a great many civilizations.


But government doesn't eliminate common property, it protects it with regulation and enforcement. Privitization may fix the problem of free-riders, but it doesn't remove the need for the use of that property. It simply changes the people who get to use it from the ones with the most force to the ones with the most money. And they're usually the same people.
 
2013-07-01 08:56:08 AM

PirateKing: You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.


That's actually the *only* way to fix the tragedy of the commons.

A commons is defined as an resource open to all that is limited, yet unrestricted in usage.

You either eliminate the commons via privatization (eliminating the "open" part), or you use a combination of regulations and taxation to put caps on usage of the commons removing the "unrestricted" part.
 
2013-07-01 08:58:38 AM

eiger: I am confused that the Swiss would be for it


Nestle. 100% because of Nestle.
 
2013-07-01 09:06:24 AM

PirateKing: eiger: PirateKing: You can't fix the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.

Actually, you can. It's essentially what government is for. It's actually worked out really well in a great many civilizations.

But government doesn't eliminate common property, it protects it with regulation and enforcement.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Come again?

Privitization may fix the problem of free-riders, but it doesn't remove the need for the use of that property.

Of course not.  However, privatization brings the commons under the law of supply and demand and a single owner.  It is much more likely that the one owner will maximize the stability of the resource over the long term, than it will 10 people using the commons, and the law of supply and demand will also keep the resource usage under control, as now the price information reflects the true scarcity of the resource.

It simply changes the people who get to use it from the ones with the most force to the ones with the most money. And they're usually the same people.

Were I to accept this argument, then the response would be "and regulation changes the people who get to control the resources from the ones with the most money (privatized owners), to the ones with the most force (government)."

I would like to see how else you compel human behavior other than carrot (make good stewardship of the resource economically advantageous) and the stick (regulation).
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report