Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Change is bad.

I'm pretty skeptical of Elon Musk. It just seems quite coincidental that as soon as the government says they're going to subsidize some industry heavily, he's there. He hasn't actually created a self-sustaining market yet, but maybe soon.

But he has at least the patina of an entrepreneur, so I assumed Freepers would bow down to their Randian superman overlord as they have so many times in the past. However, he also heralds change. Freepers cannot abide that. So when he makes the claim that one day self-driving cars will be the norm, and that indeed cars you drive will be outlawed, Freepers lash out with reflexive paranoia.

allendale knows all change is just another avenue for tyranny:
Soon you will need an EPA permit to own an internal combustion engine.
Kaled knows driving is already tyranny:
There are already so many regulations (like ridiculously low speed limits) that it already is effectively illegal to drive on the roads. It's just that the cops don't try to stop everybody -- just enough to meet quota.
P-Marlowe worries what will happen once cars have electronics in them:
This clown has never heard of an EMP.

Suddenly all those cars that don’t have humans driving them will stop working altogether or start acting uncontrollably.
yldstrk doesn't trust no gizmos to do human work:
What a frickin moron. Would you rather have a computer try your case for you? Fly your plane for you? Cut you open?

Humans are as good as it gets. No robot is better. More expendable yes, not superior.
central_va makes with the racial funny:
Will the Asian robotic cars be the worst drivers?
mountainlion foresees problems that no one has ever considered:
There seems to be a lot of ignorance among city dwellers. I live in the mountains on a dirt road. Think how much money it will cost to prepare all rural roads for this city dweller utopian wet dream. How are the cars going to put on chains to drive in the ice and snow? How are the cars going to find the road and not say try to take off on a frozen river. This idea is not totally useless but not much more than 50% practical.
WhiskeyX is another one for whom all roads lead to opression:
The logical outcome of such a move would be to make every trip subject to the control and monitoring of the State. The next step will be a requirement to first justify and obtain a permit to use the State’s resources to embark on any and every trip in the State controlled and managed vehicles.
Noamie argues cars are a human right:
What will the poor drive, tell me?

They can hardly afford the used cars that we have today and I hardly think that a self-driving car will be cheaper.

Freedom of movement is one of the pillars of liberty. In this country that often requires a car. Take that from the poor and you are a disgusting human being.
Darksheare has almost pure invective:
My response to Musk and his brand of socialists: Kiss my white phosphorescent backside you parasitic putz!
Boogieman sums up Freepers' position:
From my cold, dead hands.

26 comments:

  1. "Until the persecution of the Jews began in Germany under Hitler, most Jews were all for him."

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3276844/posts?page=8#8

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why are you against Elon, Ozy? He represents the typical Democrat "businessman" in cahoots with the Big Govt Sugar Daddy. Is it not the Democrat dream, to have Govt decide which businesses be allowed to flourish and which ones to penalize?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's almost as if you know liberals don't believe that, but prefer to argue against a strawman to grappling with a coherent philosophy.

      Delete
    2. No, I do know liberals believe that. That explains the lib support for Solyandra and the lib hatred for coal fired power plants. Libs are fine with using govt to prop up businesses even failed ones as long as it is "sustainable". Elon Musk is simply playing the lib game.

      Delete
    3. Some projects won't happen without government initiative. Hoover Dam, Apollo, the Internet...
      Liberals think that alternative fuels are one of those projects. That doesn't mean we support abuse of that system.

      Delete
    4. coal fired power plants.

      Right, 'cause coal-fired plants and the oil and gas industry have never, ever benefited in any way from preferential treatment at the hands of government. It's all just been hard work, tenacity and luck. No massive taxpayer-funded subsidies, and no legislative handouts, sweetheart deals or anti-competitive rule-jiggering. Absolutely nothing going on there but the free market in action!

      Fucking moron.

      Delete
    5. Nuclear plants wouldn't even exist without subsidies.

      Delete
    6. Oil and coal producers owe their huge profits to government subsidies and preferential tax cuts and credits. They're the largest recipients of welfare in the world.

      Delete
    7. But SOLYNDRA!

      Delete
  3. Freepers freep on single guys ( spoiler it them women's fault)

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3276871/posts#comment

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't bother looking, but how many posts before a "Bring me a sammich, woman" comment?

      Delete
    2. The men are making a rational choice.
      60% of college students are women. Most women will not consider marrying a man less credentialed than they are, or who makes less money than them.
      A disproportionate share of women are seeking to wait until their late 20’s or 30 to try to get married; spending the intervening years racking up tens of thousands of dollars of debt, and having sex with bad boys.
      Studies have shown the risk of divorce rises significantly if the woman has had more than one sexual partner prior to marriage.
      Getting married to one of these women, with the attendant risk of divorce, and owing alimony for an indefinite period, is not a winning move. Nor even an intelligent one.

      The women should stop being entitled sluts.


      27 posted on April 7, 2015 at 8:56:11 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)

      Delete
    3. FReeper = MRA + (40 +/- 10 years) + 2*(Sexual Insecurities)

      Delete
    4. What's wrong with most of the comments? A man is a fool to get married today in most cases. Until the divorce courts stop siding 95% with the woman men are not getting married.

      What's wrong with grey whiskers comments? He is spot on regarding women today.

      Delete
    5. Packman, I think your algorithm is off. I think your 40 should be 50.

      Delete
    6. FR is Dead Pecker Row.

      Delete
    7. Until the divorce courts stop siding 95% with the woman men are not getting married.

      My guess is, most men who are refusing to get married because of what allegedly happens in divorce court are much, MUCH likelier than other men to wind up in divorce court, on account of how they're much likelier to be whining, spoiled, overentitled man-children with a bottomless appetite for misogynist conspiracy theories that explain away their personal inadequacies by projecting them onto women.

      If these douchebags wanna opt out of marriage and parenthood, that's A-OK by me. The country and the world will be better for it. Enjoy your fleshlights, losers!

      Delete
    8. Yes, because slinging insults is totally so much more mature. Please don't stoop to that level dude.

      Delete
    9. what do you have against fleshlights?

      Delete
  4. Great minds. You'll be seeing that gem on Monday.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Luddites. All of them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The post by Noamie is rather atypical in it's concern for the well being of the poor. Freepers usually resent anything that elevates the poor above a state of misery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I feel like a dummy. I used an improper apostrophe in the above post. Proper grammar and punctuation should never be ignored, even on the internet. Noone will loose the meaning of there words if u do that. Nuf sed.

      Delete
  7. There are already so many regulations (like ridiculously low speed limits) that it already is effectively illegal to drive on the roads.

    I agree! Also, there are so many regulations on restaurants that it's effectively illegal to visit or run one. I mean, the last time I went to a restaurant, they actually had a sign telling workers to wash their hands after using the toilet. For a moment I thought I was in Lubyanka prison.

    Now that restaurants have effectively become illegal, the American public is effectively doomed to starvation. At this moment, corpses are effectively rotting in the streets, and I can effectively see hordes of rats effectively nibbling at the carcasses of my loved ones. And yet, if I try to shoo them away, the ESA stormtroopers will effectively arrest and execute me for disrespecting animals, who effectively have more rights than human beings thanks to the Darwin Cult.

    RIP USA, 1776-2015, died effectively of MURDER, effectively.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no regulation passed by government that wasn't in direct response to a lawsuit. Nothing! The "clean hands" sign is because someone sued after being sick and the illusion of safety was created by attaching a sign to the wall in the john so we FEEL safe. It's all bullshit.

      The problem with the government is the American people. When lead is found in toys from China, we respond with absolute hysteria. We expect our lives to be convenient and protected, but at low cost. We like giving our children inexpensive toys, but don't want them to come from a place where the condition of the materials used to make them are low quality.

      We assume that we can have both safety and quality in life while we're protected from harm. Government "controls" the Leviathan by enacting laws that protects us from uncertainty. Truth is, it's an illusion.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, rules -- pfft. Why have any? People just break them, anyway.

      Delete