Thursday, September 17, 2009

Questions on piracy, lying, racism and more

  1. To repel the increasing numbers of pirates threatening to board them, ships plying the world’s oceans these days are often armed. Is anyone else a little disappointed that the ship heading into Tauranga and illegally boarded by idiots wasn’t?
  2. Since shouting “you lie” at President Zero, Congressman Joe Wilson a stern rebuke from the Congress – and cash and support from across the country. And since even Zero has now issued “a clarification” of his speech, is there anyone who doesn’t agree that he was doing just what Wilson said he was?
  3. Does anyone really believe that millions of people are showing up at Tea Party protests across the US because they’re all racist?
  4. Does anyone really believe that taxpayer funding for Maoris to insulate their home isn’t?
  5. Does anyone really want to be taxed to hell just so they can download porn faster?
  6. Does anyone really believe that illegally downloading and passing around copyrighted material isn’t stealing?
  7. Since socialists never admire profits, how come they’re always so eager to steal them?
  8. Since people hate gangs and criminals so much, then how come those same people keep rejecting evidence that prohibition only fuels them – that it puts them (fatally) in charge of the quality of supply – that legalisation doesn’t -- or in other words, that the War on Drugs is Immoral Idiocy and "the case for legalising all drugs is unanswerable"?

Labels:

10 Comments:

Anonymous Elijah Lineberry said...

I thought the Federated Farmers chappie on 'Breakfast' lobbed a few successful hits at Greenpeace this morning; he labled them 'anti business, anti exports' [etc].

Splendid interview!

What Greenpeace fail to realise is that no one in the 'Court of Public Opinion' actually knows what Palm Oil is or had even heard of the stuff until that fuss about Cadbury chocolate a couple of months back... (go and ask 50 people in Timaru or Hastings)...

"Save the Whales" 'ordinary' people can grasp; "Saving Palm Oil" generates a response of "huh? wtf is that?"

Even their own 'Urban Liberal Wanker' supporters do not have the faintest idea, they simply think "oh Greenpeace again, hmmmm..palm oil...is that like Palmolive soap? oh well.. [*SHRUG*].. better support them because I am a liberal"

9/17/2009 10:52:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

And still zero reporting of the US tea party protests from the MSM .. as opposed to wall-to-wall coverage of any protesting at G20 & WTO summits, or anti-racism/GE/carbon/you name it, they're opposed to it demos by the usual grubby suspects.

Funny, that.

9/17/2009 11:05:00 am  
Blogger PC said...

Protests weren't reported by local MSM, Sus, but "reports" that the protestors are all racists have been.

Go figure.

9/17/2009 11:16:00 am  
Anonymous Redbaiter said...

One thing that the Tea Party protests show is that there is a huge existing political resource that the Libertarians failed to tap because of the restrictions of their dogma.

Thats a FAIL for you guys. A major FAIL.

9/17/2009 11:34:00 am  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do you mean red?
were there not many liberatarians present?

9/17/2009 12:18:00 pm  
Blogger Ruth said...

This must be a record week for nostril-flaring outrage at Not PC - and it's only Thursday.

Watch out it doesn't become a major artery-clog. ;-) Life is too short, you know.

9/17/2009 12:53:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

Palm Oil was covered on the news. People aren't so stupid they cannot make the intellectual jump from consuming palm oil, to how palm oil is produced, to where palm oil is produced to the fact that it is destroying natural habitats.

It isn't actually rocket science.

9/17/2009 01:41:00 pm  
Anonymous Barry said...

1. Do you think that greenpeace supporters would expect someone to murder them? Not likely. Shooting someone hanging off the side of your ship obviously protesting is murder not self/property defence.

2. What was Obama Lying about? The wording of the Document was that it was illegal. Because people could have done it illegally doesn't mean that the reform applies to them. The man who yelled lier obviously didn't clearly understand what was said.

3. I saw news bulletins clearly saying that it was only a small part of them. You should stop watching all that left-wing news.

4. National are slutty weasels. Of course they will do anything to get and keep power.

5. People have the free right to purchase wireless internet access to their house right now. I'm sorry...yes you are right...it is prohibitively expensive. Great example of the free market being more expensive. Private firms would take decades just to secure the property rights to supply peoples homes as the wires must go through private and public lands. So the $1.5b is cheaper than any other option.

6. Stealing has always been stealing

7. Socialists do admire profits. Everyone does. It is just exploitation they hate.

8. Only dangerous hard drugs such as P should be banned.

9/17/2009 11:09:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#6. Actually many over at the Mises Institute (which you link to) think that Copyright is a form of monopoly privilege which violates the principles of the Free Market. There are several pieces over there which reject IP and I agree after reading them.

9/18/2009 05:32:00 am  
Blogger libertyscott said...

Barry: On your internet point, private companies already have full access to the incumbancy corridor rights that Telecom and power companies have to lay and string cables up. Auckland City Council expressly forbid Telstra-Clear from stringing up HFC broadband cable overhead where power lines already are, which effectively shut out a source of infrastructure based competition in Auckland. Wellington, Hutt, Upper Hutt, Christchurch and Kapiti Councils did not, to the good fortune of all of those cities.

The free market has not failed, since the government took Telecom's property rights over its infrastructure, in effect it said "don't build your own infrastructure, as it wont be your own".

Besides, so what if it is expensive? If you want it, you'll pay for it, or maybe not enough people want it at the price it costs to provide it?

9/18/2009 08:51:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

<< Home