Search Amazon.com:
Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«34 »
  • Post
  • Reply
CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005





-Voted the worst poster in D&D. He beat out the likes of Sippenhaft, Teapot, GI Joe Dirtbag, Mr. Rosewater and Ferretball.
-Hardcore libertarian
-Ron Paul supporter
-He namesearches himself then PMs those to ask why they mentioned him.

Just an example of one of his posts.

qalnor posted:


quote:

We apparently agree that Ron Paul is not a libertarian and that what the libertarians think of Tancredo is hence irrelevant.

Well my point was that their positions are not the same. My point is as follows:

Libertarians believe: W, X, Y, Z
Ron Paul believes A, B, X, Y, Z
Tancredo believes: A, B, C, D, Z

You said that Ron Paul = Tancredo, and in order to illustrate why that is not true, I mentioned the extensive overlap between libertarians and Ron Paul.

There is also extensive overlap between Tancredo and Ron Paul, but there is almost no overlap between libertarians and Tancredo. Libertarians are relevant only as an example to help illustrate why you are wrong that Ron Paul and Tancredo have basically the same positions.

quote:

I basically said "so are you" to the pot.

But you're wrong. I told you to look him up because I looked him up, and the similarities between Tancredo and Ron Paul were fairly superficial. They certainly have more in common with each other than I have in common with Tancredo, but I actually agree with Ron Paul on a number of issues.

quote:

Removing the fetters which limit the actions of the super-rich and the super-big would not benefit them? That's a bizarre view. Do elaborate.

Because the fetters aren't fettering them as much as they're fettering everyone else.

quote:

That is a totally specious statement.

The hurdles placed to social mobility are backed by his decisions, but that has NOTHING to do with your first statement.

A Truly Free Market as Paul has "designed" through indesign is pro "people in power" by its very nature. Sure, they'll be lacking some of the Government support, but they have no official sanctions to restrain them in all other harmful aspects. Keeping new people from getting rich will not endanger the businessmen from profiting off the scale of operations and inertia they have already attained. He would be far more likely to destroy the middle class than "the rich".

I can't believe that you find this to be a sensible view of what Ron Paul has planned.

I don't think it is a specious statement. Maybe I should have phrased it a little differently though. What I mean is that the super-rich won't be helped by what he's doing, the super-rich will be forced to compete with the rich.

Free markets tend to make everyone either middle class or rich unless they're in some way disabled. Look at early American cities. Laissez faire wasn't perfect, but there was very little government intervention and the vast majority of people were middle class.

The rich do not have it in their power to 'hold down the little guy' without the help of government to do it. If there are no barriers to entry, there will always be sufficient price and labor competition to create a vibrant middle class.

During times of change, people become displaced, and there are situations where those people have difficulty maintaining their old quality of life. Right now, apart from problems resulting from over-regulation, we are in one of those periods.

Technological advancement and globalization have created market forces which have created a great deal of wealth, but a great deal of that wealth isn't being distributed in the usual fashion. Part of this is the fault of the government, but a great deal of it is just natural and will abate as it has always abated through the passage of time.

I for one do think the government does have a role in easing that transition. I'm not quite as pro-capitalism as Ron Paul is, and I think that one of the truly beneficial things we can spend government money on is in somehow encouraging reeducation.

But even without such things, capitalism helps everyone. Does it help certain people even more than others? Yes, but that's why it helps everyone more than any other system, so changing that fact isn't going to help anything.

If Ron Paul were to have his way on economic policy and nothing else, everyone would be better off except the super-rich who would be slightly harmed.

Here's another.

qalnor posted:

I'm generally against a voluntary standing army being used for purposes of war.

I'm against a draft, but I think that a standing army should be comprised only of sufficient forces to defend our nation if we were to come under attack, and that defensive force should not be permitted to leave the country under any circumstances.

In the case of a necessary war, militias should voluntarily form and be paid for by states, rather than the federal government. In general, states should transfer command to the central government in the time of war, but of course that is up to their discretion.

So it's not really a statement for or against the draft, it's a statement that says simply that politicians should have to face the political consequences of impressing people into service if they wish to send people off to war, or else people should volunteer for service in that particular war.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a cause, there's just something wrong with blind nationalism.

More.

qalnor posted:

well. i get put on probation a lot on d&d because stupid people make me angry and when i'm angry I say things that get me put on probation

i don't actually mind arguing with you even though you are a stupid stinkyhole. the problem is that because i need anger management i have to ignore people whose posts make me want to stab people in the face with a rusty shiv.

so you and snowandlights and lafargot are on ignore. mccaine would be on ignore too but it won't let me ignore moderators

Thinks people attack him for Helldump cred.

qalnor's interpretation of Jozier posted:

Qalnor called me on being retarded as poo poo so I'm going to quote some poo poo that makes me look cool to my helldump shitbuddies

Shocker: he has to pay for sex.

qalnor posted:

I didn't know Happyelf did that since I put him on ignore, but it's my favorite kind of burn to be honest. I don't like being overtly cruel, as I was being with the pyf guy, because I think it's kind of boring and lacks creativity.

I mean really, don't you get tired of just posting dumb poo poo over and over again? Your burns aren't as bad as the 'shut up qalnor' crap, but they're not much better. I thought originally that maybe I could make fun of your burns by making even worse burns, for the irony effect, but everyone mistook that for ineffective burnology.

Oh and I'm not ashamed to admit things about myself, I am not in a relationship at the moment. I occasionally see a prostitute but since the end of my last relationship I've become quite jaded and I don't mind admitting that I 'touch myself more than I touch others'.

And I mean, I was being pseudo-compassionate but I wasn't being entirely disingenuous either, if you think 'lol you jerk off' is an effective insult you should really honestly take stock of yourself, because that kind of attitude isn't healthy.

More.

qalnor posted:

Yes, it is a subsidy.

For one thing, and this is even before I get into the meat of the issue, you are grossly in error if you believe that fiat currency is compatible with a free market. So right off the bat, you're absolutely wrong to say that if the currency is printed up for the purpose it still remains a free market.

Secondly, generally speaking you are defining a subsidy too narrowly. A subsidy is defined in this context as any monetary transaction flowing from the public coffers to private business.

A subsidy is not necessarily (and is not usually ever in this context) a 'gift'. Rather, a subsidy is generally a contract between the government and a business. In some cases the intent is to stabilize or modify market prices, however the intention to interfere with the free market is NOT necessary to do so.

Any purchase made by the government is a subsidy. When a purchase is made which would not otherwise have been made, demand has increased whereas supply is diminished.

Simply because the government works within the 'market' does not make that market 'free'.

A truly free market obviously cannot exist in the strictest sense as long as the government exists. Most american advocates for a free market, however, would think the market 'free enough' if the government restricted its purchases to things which it actually needs to perform the functions outlined in the Constitution.

This actually includes buying mercenaries, as I do not actually have a problem with a nation at war spending money on things they need to win that war. My only bone of contention is with blaming the free market for things which have no relationship to the free market whatsoever.

Mod sasser.

qalnor posted:


McCaine posted:

But why are all the people in the US military to be preconceived of as "poor, stupid or desperate"? And how is this not insulting the military as a whole, as opposed to just the generals? You're digging yourself in a deeper hole with every dumb statement that comes out of your mouth/keyboard.

I never claimed to have a high regard for the entirely. However:

quote:

No you goddamn idiot, because the statement I quoted is already something that can be clearly called a criticism, if not simply a pointless insult. Does "don't know their rear end from a hole in the ground when it comes to democracy" not sound like a criticism to you?
I agree, it's not praise. I don't have any high praise for people who volunteer to give up their freedom for whatever reason they do so.

What I said, quite plainly, was that I reserved my real criticism for the leaders of the military, and not ordinary servicemen who are merely pawns.

I don't really understand why you're having trouble making the distinction. I am not fond of the military in general, but my strongest criticism is reserved for those who lead it.

quote:

Seriously, stop posting.
What? What's this? Did you just say 'yeah well, so's your mother?' to me? Because that's what that sounds like to me.

You point out some mysterious irony in me not wanting to argue with people who resort to insult and straw-men, and I point out the fact that your post is nothing but a litany of lovely insults and your only response is 'stop posting'?

You're a coward McCaine. Maybe I am not the best poster in the forum, I think I do fine and I have received enough compliments on my posting to know that there is at least a select group of people who believe I do fine.

But you are every bit as bad as I am, the only difference is that you are a coward, and you hide behind your authority knowing that nobody can attack you with the vitriol you yourself wield without being subject to your wrath.

You should be a moderator on GBS, where your petty cruelty, hypocrisy and rear end in a top hat attitude would be amusing instead of infuriating.

Crimsonfunk posted:

You made a blanket statement about the entire military. Remember, you were the one who defined "military folks" as "not knowing their rear end from a hole in the ground," which leaves me wondering if you actually know any military folks in real life. If you can verify that every single one of us "surrenders all that [we] are out of patriotism," I would have to applaud you because that would mean you have talked to every single person in the military and have evidence to prove your claim.

Well, I'm no 'expert' on military matters. But I was under the impression that one of the things military folks do is, factually, surrender their freedom. If that isn't the case, if you don't surrender your selves to the authority of the government, then please correct me.

But my statement was meant to be accurate based on a commonality shared by all military servicemen, not one based on observation. It's kind of like saying 'Well, you need to ask EVERY SQUARE in the world whether it has four even sides before I'll believe you'. Sorry, but that's part of being a square.

And yes, I did make a blanket statement about all of them, as I said to McCaine above. I haven't tried to hide or change that. All I'm saying is that my real criticism is reserved for the leaders. I don't consider the universal criticism I make to be particularly strong.

There are a lot of non-military people who give themselves up to authority as well, and there are a lot of people in the world who might as well give themselves up to authority. I don't really consider it a strong criticism to say that a self-selected group of people who by virtue of their profession are unfree have no real understanding of democracy.

It's their choice, but like I went on to say, I'm not trying to say that it's necessarily a choice that I think is 'bad' or 'evil'. I think we may need some sort of standing army, I'd just prefer that standing army be used for defensive purposes only.

THIS IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS ACTUALLY BELIEVE

EDIT: There was a post where he advocated prison surprise sex, I'm trying to find it right now.

CrumFUNist! fucked around with this message at Oct 6, 2007 around 01:45

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

a man of ill repute
Dec 14, 2006

by Ozma


this cant possibly be the first time qalnor's been called out.

CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005



adaptive radiation posted:

this cant possibly be the first time qalnor's been called out.

It is. Although he's been mocked a lot in the D&D and PRON HAUL threads.

Contrabassoon
Jan 29, 2002
REALLY SHITTY POSTER

This gem, hot off the presses:

qalnor posted:

That's true, but slaves were slaves by law, so once again the problem seems to be government.
If there is no law, then there can be no crime. Genius!

Boniface
Jul 18, 2005

Halfway home and my pager still blowin up

adaptive radiation posted:

this cant possibly be the first time qalnor's been called out.
this would normally make sense, but you're forgetting that most people don't ever read his posts

Mystery Opponent
Sep 27, 2006

but u was a real nigga
i could sense it in u


Crumbunist posted:


-He namesearches himself then PMs those to ask why they mentioned him.


hahahahahahahaha

THAGMARRRRRRRR
Mar 22, 2005

by Fistgrrl


Everybody read that first post of his, especially the entire last section that begins with "I don't think it is a specious statement."

Boniface
Jul 18, 2005

Halfway home and my pager still blowin up

THAGMARRRRRRRR posted:

Everybody read that first post of his, especially the entire last section that begins with "I don't think it is a specious statement."

qalnor posted:

Free markets tend to make everyone either middle class or rich unless they're in some way disabled. Look at early American cities. Laissez faire wasn't perfect, but there was very little government intervention and the vast majority of people were middle class.
qalnor is a virus

THAGMARRRRRRRR
Mar 22, 2005

by Fistgrrl


Also I once edited his wikikrakken page to include a quote of his saying the constitution grants the executive branch the power to disbar judges whose opinions it does not agree with and qalnor got afreak to ban me and revert my changes by telling him I was McCaine's alt

Pacra
Aug 5, 2004



Qalnor posted:

Technological advancement and globalization have created market forces which have created a great deal of wealth, but a great deal of that wealth isn't being distributed in the usual fashion. Part of this is the fault of the government, but a great deal of it is just natural and will abate as it has always abated through the passage of time.

But even without such things, capitalism helps everyone. Does it help certain people even more than others? Yes, but that's why it helps everyone more than any other system, so changing that fact isn't going to help anything.

If Ron Paul were to have his way on economic policy and nothing else, everyone would be better off except the super-rich who would be slightly harmed.

Yeah bro trickle-down that economic poo poo. What's the number of your hooker, I'd like to redistribute some of that wealth right now

seriously, Qalnor, once you namesearch this: you're one of the dumbest faggots I've ever had the pain of reading on these boards, get banned already

CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005



This was his first post in D&D.

qalnor posted:

What I have never understood is why Americans feel so much guilt for screwing the Indians over in the first place. The simple fact of the matter is this: they lost, and we won. Their culture was inferior, and we conquered it.

Now, however, it seems that we are expected to feel sorry because instead of killing them all of we shunted them off to the side? Worse yet, we seem to be giving their culture weapons to use against ours. Granted, these weapons are certainly insufficient to destroy us; I am not trying to suggest that there is a conspiracy for world Indian supremecy. Yet we are giving them free economic advantages because we feel bad?

If we must feel bad, here is what I say:

Seal the borders to reservations. Allow anyone to leave who wishes, but they may not return, and nobody may visit the reservations. Allow them to rule themselves, and do not affect their lives as long as they remain on the reservations. If they leave the reservation, then they become American citizens and they must find their way in the world like any other American citizen.

Whine E. McLiberal
Oct 30, 2005

by Fragmaster


The prison surprise sex quote was something like "in a way I consider prison surprise sex to be almost ideal" if that helps you

Crumbunist posted:

well. i get put on probation a lot on d&d because stupid people make me angry and when i'm angry I say things that get me put on probation

i don't actually mind arguing with you even though you are a stupid stinkyhole. the problem is that because i need anger management i have to ignore people whose posts make me want to stab people in the face with a rusty shiv.

so you and snowandlights and lafargot are on ignore. mccaine would be on ignore too but it won't let me ignore moderators
I take a lot of pride in knowing that I pissed him off so much that he mentioned me in a totally unrelated thread

Qalnor thinks that taxation is theft and "slavery."

Slippery
May 16, 2004



Crumbunist posted:

It is. Although he's been mocked a lot in the D&D and PRON HAUL threads.

yeah, wasn't he the overall winner of the worst poster contest?

CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005



Slippery posted:

yeah, wasn't he the overall winner of the worst poster contest?

I mentioned that in the first post, in the first line.

Sergg
Sep 19, 2005

I was rejected by the:



He's basically like a non-schizophrenic version of TobleroneTriangular.

Jackfruit
Apr 27, 2006

dem bones dem bones gonna walk around



This is why qalnor is worse than other libertarians, really. Others are completely out of their minds in ways somewhat consistent with libertarianism, but qalnor manages to be horrendously wrong on tangential things that you would never expect.

Hot Dog Day #91
Jun 19, 2003

The 91st of the Days of the Hot Dog

Contrabassoon posted:

Qalnor and Slaves

Slave codes dont exist until 1705 so what are they before they were legally slaves hmm Qalnor hmm?

Sergg
Sep 19, 2005

I was rejected by the:



quote:

ineffective burnology.

peenworm
Aug 27, 2002


Hot Dog Day #91 posted:

Slave codes dont exist until 1705 so what are they before they were legally slaves hmm Qalnor hmm?

oh crap it's someone who knows anything at all

qalnor's one weakness

THAGMARRRRRRRR
Mar 22, 2005

by Fistgrrl


qalnor posted:

To be honest, I haven't really read a lot of history that covers periods after [1850]
BAM

Boniface
Jul 18, 2005

Halfway home and my pager still blowin up

peenworm posted:

oh crap it's someone who knows anything at all

qalnor's one weakness
ahahahahaha

CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005



Here it is.

qalnor posted:

In some ways, I view the prison surprise sex situation as almost ideal. It is cruelty created by apathy, not revenge and not corruption, and it DOES deter crime. Sadly the aids issue is too valid a point for me to ignore.

Oligopsony
May 17, 2007

there are so many dawns
that have not yet glowed


Every qalnor post is great.

qalnor posted:

It has been my impression from various things I have read over the years that the cities during this time period were relatively free of government control of commerce and that while there were certainly wealthy individuals and poor individuals, there was a very healthy middle class to the point that it was the majority.

I should say, I certainly don't have demographic data to back this up. It is based on my impression from various biographies and histories of the period. It may be, as they say, colored by the fact that remaining records focus primarily upon middle and upper class individuals.

RommelMcDonald
Sep 27, 2005




quote:

Free markets tend to make everyone either middle class or rich unless they're in some way disabled. Look at early American cities. Laissez faire wasn't perfect, but there was very little government intervention and the vast majority of people were middle class.

My favorite part was when Jurgis gets promoted to chief quality inspector after threatening to apply for a business loan so he can compete with the stockyards.

Jackfruit
Apr 27, 2006

dem bones dem bones gonna walk around


Crumbunist posted:

Here it is.

i'm pretty sure taking it in the can would never deter qalnor from anything

Sergg
Sep 19, 2005

I was rejected by the:



He's got this viking nerd chic style going on. Imagining a large, hairy, unkempt, scary guy posting all that makes it a lot funnier. I'm guessing he's an aspie too.



"I view the prison surprise sex situation as almost ideal."

THAGMARRRRRRRR
Mar 22, 2005

by Fistgrrl


SpecialOlympian posted:

My favorite part was when Jurgis gets promoted to chief quality inspector after threatening to apply for a business loan so he can compete with the stockyards.

The Jungle was published in 1906, this is after 1850, qalnor isn't aware of its existence

CrumFUNist!
Nov 27, 2005



Obviously he loves Ayn Rand.

qalnor posted:

People dislike Ayn Rand because her views threaten theirs. It's really as simple as that, very few people have the excess energy to bother hating things which pose their views no threat but are somehow vaguely objectionable.

That doesn't make her right, mind you, and it doesn't make the people who dislike her wrong. It just means that her views have the power to resonate with people in a way that threatens the philosophy of others.

To take it a step further: her views threaten the views of many because she encourages people to not only empower themselves, but to value themselves more highly than they value 'society'.

Her threat, the thing that everyone despises about her, is that she claims that no man should allow himself to be enslaved by any other man nor by society itself.

I think it's obvious from what I say that I agree with her, and I will not make the pretense that I do not. I don't mind that there are people who disagree with her, but there can be no disagreement about what she stands for.

Whine E. McLiberal
Oct 30, 2005

by Fragmaster


qalnor posted:

So would you roll your eyes if someone said they were angry that their house was broken into and robbed? You might roll your eyes because it was posted on this forum, which is a largely political forum, but you wouldn't roll your eyes because they were failing to grin and bear it.

I would call this a strawman but I don't think it's that exactly. Perhaps a reverse strawman, where instead of arguing against a misrepresentation of the values of others you are arguing in favor of a misrepresentation of your own values.

Unless you do think people should just grin and bear it when they're robbed, raped or beaten?
When I complain about having to pay taxes, you roll your eyes...but when someone is raped, why don't I see any eye rolling?

THAGMARRRRRRRR
Mar 22, 2005

by Fistgrrl


quote:

instead of arguing against a misrepresentation of the values of others you are arguing in favor of a misrepresentation of your own values.
qalnor is a unique snowflake

Sergg
Sep 19, 2005

I was rejected by the:



The Indians' culture was merely inferior, and we conquered it. We had deeply rooted cultural traditions such as the process by which we anoint our newborn babies with resistance to hosts of lethal diseases, for one.

Joe Hockeys Scrote
Aug 8, 2003

I'M SOAG THE DUMPLING QUEEN
and i huff me own farts




Of course he would, it's the ideal freemarket, devoid of government regulation. He'd be unpatriotic if he didn't.

Boniface
Jul 18, 2005

Halfway home and my pager still blowin up

qalnor's one of those people i want to see banned for being a complete piece of poo poo, but who is in fact such an unforgivably stupid and twisted motherfucker that a part of my brain steps in and says, "no, DON'T ban that guy" because I know the moment he's banned is the moment he no longer is forced to learn over and over how excruciatingly loving retarded and EVIL he is

Stegosaurus
Sep 30, 2005

yeah it was like, we came in one day and there was a five-seven just chillin on airbus two. we were like, 'the hell?'

"society"

Stegosaurus
Sep 30, 2005

yeah it was like, we came in one day and there was a five-seven just chillin on airbus two. we were like, 'the hell?'

whatever the gently caress all that bullshit is

Sergg
Sep 19, 2005

I was rejected by the:





"i don't actually mind arguing with you even though you are a stupid stinkyhole."

Max Nitwit
Sep 11, 2001

I miss the 80s.

Boniface posted:

qalnor's one of those people i want to see banned for being a complete piece of poo poo, but who is in fact such an unforgivably stupid and twisted motherfucker that a part of my brain steps in and says, "no, DON'T ban that guy" because I know the moment he's banned is the moment he no longer is forced to learn over and over how excruciatingly loving retarded and EVIL he is

He's like a pulp villain. He's so two-dimensional it's hard to credit he actually exists.

Foodpie
Apr 20, 2006

And THAT is how you get rid of those hard to clean stains.

This thread has been a long time coming. gently caress you qalnor. gently caress you.

Whine E. McLiberal
Oct 30, 2005

by Fragmaster


I'm also a fan of qalnor's huffy little primadonna breakdowns when things don't go his way

qalnor posted:

You know, I really have to thank the pair of you. Libertarianism is very much not a mainstream viewpoint, and many people think the best way to deal with it is to simply close their eyes and hope it will go away, because they aren't prepared to defend against it.

And they're right, the reality is, libertarianism can't sustain itself on the few supporters it has. But the pair of you, and those like you, really do help us a lot, by demonstrating your inability to make a legitimate point so loudly and vocally.

I salute you two, and encourage you to post more posts which over the course of 4 posts add up to one very short and very stupid post, because it makes what I want to accomplish so much easier.

qalnor posted:

I have answered just about every comment directed on me in this thread whether I really wanted to invest the time in a reply or not. I do this in every thread I participate heavily in.

What I will not do, however, is play twenty questions with someone who refuses to put their own opinion out there for scrutiny. If I can assume nothing from your questions, then don't ask them, because I'm not here to be interviewed.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Hyosho
May 9, 2006


soag.242 posted:

Of course he would, it's the ideal freemarket, devoid of government regulation. He'd be unpatriotic if he didn't.

Touching that is NOT a rational act.

  • Post
  • Reply
«34 »