Too Stupid To Not Fail

Idaho State Representative Vito Barbieri, a Republican, earned mass ridicule for suggesting that a woman’s stomach is directy connected to her vagina. Should anyone that stupid be making public policy?

22 Comments. Leave new

  • So, a woman asks her doctor, “This may be a stupid question, but can I get pregnant from anal sex?”
    The doctor replies, “It’s not a stupid question at all – where do you think Republicans come from?”

    In order to drive a car, you must take a test that proves you’re competent. If you show yourself to be a total incompetent after obtaining your license, you can lose it.

    Yet you can drive a country with no qualifications whatsoever. Politicians should have to show competence in a wide range of subjects: math, physics, psychology, sociology, biology, history, religion (comparative & history both) and Constitutional Law just for starters. If it was up to me, no superstitious idiots (“Christians”) would be allowed to hold office – their decisions are based on ridiculous assumptions.

    • Next group of idiots to ban from office: socialists! (their decisions are based on ridiculous assumptions)

      • > socialists … decisions are based on ridiculous assumptions

        Name three.

      • Oh, I can do better than three ridiculous assumptions!
        —————
        Confiscating wealth does not violate freedom.

        More laws are always the solution.

        We can destroy without repercussion the system that brought us the middle class, modernity, and general prosperity.

        People are entitled to services and goods that others must produce.

        Profit incentive has been/is unnecessary/unhelpful for civilization.

        Giving the government vast powers over the economy won’t cause corruption/loss of freedom.

        Getting people dependent on government services will not cause them to be less ambitious/independent/productive.

        There are no lazy people/freeloaders/moochers. They’re just down on their luck and most people don’t mind picking up the slack.

        We can convince people to work just as hard even if we take away part or all of their personal rewards.

        The wealthy are a bottomless pit of money and we can always take more no matter how much the government spends.

        FDR got us out of the Great Depression.

        If you’re wealthy, you’re probably a bad person.

        Raising the minimum wage will not cause some of those workers to be laid off.

        Since not enough people are enlightened like us, we must force them to care about each other–with guns!

        Massive entitlement programs are clearly sustainable in the long run even as more and more people become more and more dependent all while the tax base shrinks.
        —————
        I could go on. But I got bored.

      • Surprisingly, some of those actually make sense.

        However, the majority of them show that you still have no idea what Socialism is. I will be happy to debate you on the subject once you answer a question you’ve been asked many times and have yet to respond to.

        “What is the primary distinguishing characteristic between Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism?”

      • Capitalists believe in trading value for value voluntarily. Communists and socialists do not. I have little interest in how people try to define themselves, but I have all the interest in the world as to how they truly operate.

      • Speaking of ridiculous assumptions:

        two or three instances count as “asked many times;”

        that a debate can only proceed with the self-righteous side appointing itself arbiter of definitions and the other side must accede to this framework;

        or that I want a debate with you at all. I simply couldn’t resist replying if the topic is “banning idiots from office.” Of course the problem with that is somebody must be in charge of who is an idiot. I made the list for the benefit of any lurkers who have not completely swallowed socialist ideology.

      • > I have little interest in how people try to define themselves

        It doesn’t matter how people try to define themselves, what matters is how an economic textbook defines those terms. While I am pleased that you finally attempted to answer my query, your “definition” misses the point.

        Here’s the deal: You obviously want to discuss socioeconomics. In that case, you’ll have to learn the language, otherwise no one will understand what you’re talking about.

        It would take you all of thirty seconds to google the classical definitions – but here, I’ll do your homework for you.

        CAPITALISM: the means of production are controlled by private parties.

        SOCIALISM: the means of production are controlled by the state.

        COMMUNISM: the means of production are controlled by the people at large.

        Now, in light of your newfound knowledge, choose any three assertions from your laundry list and make your case. I might respond – providing you actually manage to criticize the theory rather than holding up silly stereotypes which you assume represent people who hold to those theories.

      • Confiscating wealth does not violate freedom.

        Freedom to confiscate wealth is what this nation was founded on. One form of this confiscation is slavery. Another is taxes for militarized police to protect the wealthy from the majority who they cheat and then get bailed out through the capitalist government.

        More laws are always the solution.

        This capitalist government is always passing more laws to solidify the Private/Public Unity’s hold on the majority of wealth

        We can destroy without repercussion the system that brought us the middle class, modernity, and general prosperity.

        That system has been destroyed incrementally since the 1970s and was a product of FDRs saving of capitalism.
        The repercussions have been a general acquiescence and acceptance of unemployment in the 5 to 10 % range, among others.

        People are entitled to services and goods that others must produce.

        How is it that people who produce goods are not allowed to take some of what they produce home with them?

        How is it that the non-producing Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector that produces nothing has the greatest capitalist government entitlement to real goods that they produce a total of nothing of.

        That’s why their income is called unearned income.

        Profit incentive has been/is unnecessary/unhelpful for civilization.

        Civilization has always been about the division of wealth among a few per cent and poverty among the great majority. Profit has been very helpful to civilization as we know it.

        Giving the government vast powers over the economy won’t cause corruption/loss of freedom.

        Of course it will cause corruption, and it has. The capitalist form of government is rife with corruption and cannot stand without capitalist government support and a huge prison system.

        Getting people dependent on government services will not cause them to be less ambitious/independent/productive.

        I agree with you here. How many holders of large amounts of capitalist government fiat money do you find doing productive labor out of necessity? Near none, unless performed as community service in restitution for crimes committed.

        There are no lazy people/freeloaders/moochers. They’re just down on their luck and most people don’t mind picking up the slack.

        Wall Street speculators and bankers do no productive work and yet live high on the goods and wealth produced by productive labor. These people are freeloaders and moochers on the working people whom they defraud with finance scams, scam collapses, and then by bank bailouts.

        We can convince people to work just as hard even if we take away part or all of their personal rewards.

        Wealthy people will not work because they don’t need to and can always organize a war to generate more profit and kill off excess working people.

        The wealthy are a bottomless pit of money and we can always take more no matter how much the government spends.

        The wealthy create money, and money surrogates, from nothing.

        FDR got us out of the Great Depression.

        FDR saved capitalism. If all the money is in the hands of a few, who is there to buy and produce goods but the few among their feeble selves?

        If you’re wealthy, you’re probably a bad person.

        I agree with you here. Most wealthy people are psychopaths, like Chainsaw Al Dunlop for example. And if you don’t watch out that mind rot is going to get you too.

        Raising the minimum wage will not cause some of those workers to be laid off.

        Actually, declining minimum wages results in declining demand, layoffs, and recession.
        You can’t sell what others can’t afford to buy.

        Since not enough people are enlightened like us, we must force them to care about each other–with guns!

        This is the right wing mantra. It is the capitalist police whose job it is to force people to care with guns.

        Massive entitlement programs are clearly sustainable in the long run even as more and more people become more and more dependent all while the tax base shrinks.

        Yes, we must stop supporting the banks and Wall Street in their failed scams and stop bailing them out.

      • Nice, Glenn – so I’ll take on this little gem:

        “Capitalists believe in trading value for value voluntarily.”

        You’re off course by about 1,260 degrees. Allow me to illustrate. Let’s say you go down to the Farmers’ Market and buy a dozen apples for twelve dollars. You then stand on a street corner, and sell the apples for a dollar each.

        You traded a dollar for an apple, then traded an apple for a dollar, you have traded value for value, correct? Yet I doubt you’d be happy.

        Let’s say you work in a rocking chair factory. The raw materials and overhead costs the company $50 a day. You assemble one rocking chair a day – and the chair wholesales for $150. Your labor has added $100 of value – does the company pay you that $100? Of course not, they’ve got to skim some to pay for the CEO’s country club membership; his mahogany-paneled office that’s five times as big as the VP’s offices (which is five times as big as managers’ who work for a living) not to mention his bloated salary and those of his entourage. Those people wind up pocketing more of the fruits of your labor than you do! Viva la Capitalista!

        Now, contrast that to an employee-owned business (which we now know is closer to Communism than Capitalism) – that business doesn’t have to prop up a large number of highly-paid, unproductive people. The guys who make the day-to-day decisions all have the same size office and there’s no mahogany to be seen. There is no need for multiple layers of middle managers – their purpose is not to create profit, but rather to insulate the VIPs from the people who work for a living. You now take home much closer to that $100 – much closer to trading value for value than the Capitalist system.

        Capitalism is based on profit – and in order to make a profit you have buy at lesser value and sell at a higher value.

        One of the biggest problems is that it’s simply not sustainable. There are not an infinite amount of raw materials available; nor is there an infinite infinite labor pool to turn those materials into products. It’s basically a Ponzi scheme, great for those who get in early, but everyone else gets their leftovers.

      • Right, CrazyH

        Capitalism is based on unequal exchange enforced by guns on the side of the capitalists.

        And in Wisconsin the governor thinks union members are terrorists, just like ISIS.

      • Now that you two are done congratulating each other and have had your cathartic releases, I hope that was enjoyable because everything you just said was irrelevant.

        You should really learn not to put words in people’s mouths. You assume that you know what I believe. Just because I hate socialism doesn’t mean I support the status quo. Our system is not capitalist. A capitalist does not go to the government for help. A company is not private if it mainly works for the government. “Too big to fail” is not a capitalist argument. It is a leftist argument.

        If you want to attack the current system, hey, I’ll man the barricades right there with you, brother. The difference between us is that I’m ideologically consistent. I don’t like the little guy getting special government favors any more than the big guy. I hate banksters, bailouts, and fiat money printing presses. Call it corporate welfare, nepotism, fascism, oligarchy, aristocracy, or plutocracy or whatever else, but every time you call it capitalism, I’ll take issue with that.

        Hell, half the things Glenn said are about how the current ‘capitalist’ system is about blurring public/private, yet CH was so kind to inform me that capitalism is about private ownership. Well square that circle.

        Oh, and “value for value” doesn’t mean literally exactly equal monetary value. I can’t believe I had to say that.

      • Wise here to keep in mind Adam Smith’s observation from An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Book IV, Chapter VII, Part Second) :

        «The government of an exclusive company of merchants is, perhaps, the worst of all governments for any country whatever.»

        Henri

      • Capitalism remains a utopian ideal for Jack, because no really existing capitalism is worthy, to him, of the name.

        Of course, socialism has never existed in a pure state either. It has been in its worst incarnations, merely State Capitalism.

      • > You should really learn not to put words in people’s mouths

        We didn’t. Glenn responded to your laundry list, I took on your silly-assed “definition” – those were YOUR words. Now take a look at your laundry list – at least half of it is about what “socialists” believe- you’re putting words in people’s mouths right there.

        No, what I’m trying to do is put three words in your vocabulary, words that you use all the time and still don’t understand. You’ve repeatedly claimed to be an economics expert, but you can’t even answer a question they cover in the first week of ECON 101.

        > Just because I hate socialism

        Four days ago, you didn’t even know what Socialism was. Judging from your remarks, you still don’t. What you hate is a cobbled-together stereotype you could just as easily label, “Hippy” or “Liberal.” e.g. Making lots of laws has nothing whatsoever to do with Socialism. Nothing, nada, zip – but within the week you’ll be making the same ridiculous assertion.

        > CH was so kind to inform me that capitalism is about private ownership.

        Reading comprehension: Fail.

        It’s not about private ownership – private ownership occurs under Communism and Socialism both. It’s about the means of production. Again, if this distinction is lost on you, you’re not going to convince anyone that you’re an expert in the field.

        > and “value for value” doesn’t mean literally exactly equal monetary value

        Then what does it mean? Enlighten me. You were contrasting Capitalism, Communism, and Socialism. I showed that you got LESS value for value under Capitalism … so your point is, what, exactly?

  • From Wikipedia:

    Mark Pryor, Democrat from Arkansas, is Christian.[53] He was featured in the 2008 Bill Maher documentary Religulous, in which he tells Maher that he could believe in Young Earth creationism,[54] yet he also sees evolution as a feasible idea.[55] He states at the beginning of the interview that he is an Evangelical Christian. He also states that he believes in the Rapture, and that “You don’t need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate”.[56]

    • Paul Ryan is a Catholic AND a follower of Ayn Rand.

      Rand’s philosophy of Obectivism is based on atheism, and is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.

      … and this guy is many people’s favorite not just for the Senate, but for the highest office in the land!

      • “You don’t need to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate,” is proven again.

        Out of the mouths of idiots comes an occasional unintentional truth.

  • So, who is worse – the idiot holding the office, or the idiots who elected the idiot holding the office????

    😀

  • Come on, Ted, cut the poor chap some slack ; Mr Barbieri was, after all, born in Texas, where it may indeed be the case that female anatomy, like other matters in the region, is anomalous… 😉

    Henri

You must be logged in to post a comment.
css.php