Thursday, February 28, 2013

How Were We So Wrong?

Just came across this "Gut Check" poll from Friday, November 2, 2012:



I wonder why we were all so off? I can't help but think we overestimated our fellow citizens...

79 comments:

rbb said...

Do you watch Fox "news"?

Tater said...

Takers outnumber the Makers, plain and simple!

Later

Bram said...

Romney ran an awful campaign. I simply could not bring myself to pay attention to it.

free0352 said...

As you will recall, nearly everything I told you came to pass. Only I said the GOP would lose Congress. They barely held it.

I'll tell you know, the GOP's problems aren't policy problems, its leadership problems. The leaders of the GOP are strait up bad people. Evil corrupt people. Until that changes, it will continue to lose elections.

And most of you probably don't know who your precinct delegate is, who chairs your local executive comity let alone whose running stuff up at the RNC. THATS WHY THINGS ARE SO SCREWED UP.

And it will stay that way, because most of you Republicans say "I have a job and a life and kids and I'm too busy for politics or volunteering."

Well, you get the government you deserve. You put zero work into it, so don't be surprised when at this shitty government and the ineffectual GOP. You not only tolerate the GOP corruption, most of you don't even know it exists and if you do, you wouldn't know where it lie.

Nate said...

I wonder why we were all so off?

The people you listen to are unabashed partisans and ideologues.
They claim rhetoric as fact, and ignore any contrary evidence. It is absolutely no surprise that you were wrong about the election -- and it is the same reasons you are wrong on global warming and many economic issues. You've been mislead.

Jpck20 said...

Lol the bullshit you spew Nate gets better and better. Makes me laugh at your stupidity.

Nate said...

Also, why are we manufacturing our own crisis? Debt ceilings and sequester arguments seem to be the driving forces behind our economic malaise, and the market doesn't seem to care one iota what our budget deficit is. Our bond rating got lowered and the key factors were not our debt but our dysfunctional political system.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

What's that old song the lefties like so much now? Oh, yes.

Submit and obey,
submit and obey,
To be happy in Barry,
Just submit and obey.

Right. Disfunctional means people will not just submit to the triumph of the Statists over individuals, or regimentation over liberty. I guess a few hundred million dead due to state policy in the 20th century was just not warning enough.

Zelda said...

Free, the low-information Nates/Honey Boo Boos could not possibly care less about corruption in the government. As long as they are thrown their pennies, they do not care what the government does. You could run an ethical black, atheist, lesbian, astrophysicist and if she was a fiscal conservative, free market libertarian she'd still be labelled as a woman hating racist, and the Nates/Honey Boo Boos would believe it.

As for the poll, I never thought Romney would win. I thought he could, but Obama needed to be pounded on Obamacare and Romney couldn't do it.

Haverwilde said...


"Nate said...
Also, why are we manufacturing our own crisis?"

Because you and every other left wing spend-more-than-we-make jerk will refuse to limit your lust for more and more and more.
Once you start spending less than you take in there won't be a crisis.

Anonymous said...

A trаder that haѕ had success οnlinе dаting curгency
in the firѕt гοund. Undeг the laws οf the region саn be confusing.
About half οf Linked In's underlying business. Though this has nothing to do with illiquid underlyings. Then timing becomes an issue as the share price to a change in the Dow industrials had advanced nearly 85 points.

Here is my blog: hasslefreedatingtv.com
my page: online dating

free0352 said...

Screw government corruption, until the GOP cleans up its act there will be no alternative. The GOP elites want to RUN the corruption, not end it. Till that changes nothing else will. And it seems to me most conservatives are too caught up in their own lives to put in that work. When you can't be bothered to govern in self government, don't come crying to me. And yeah I didn't vote. Voting is a basically a joke when your choices are terrible. I decided not to play the corrupt GOP game and be force fed thier bullshit. Stop being sheep and take control or don't complain when someone else does.

free0352 said...

I'm also lost how any of you thought Mitt Romney was going to win that thing. The guy couldn't beat John McCain. What were you thinking?

free0352 said...

And I'm also endlessly curious how Romney could poll out with only 10% of the party wanting the man, but he still won the nomination and NONE OF YOU asked too many questions. Does that NOT tell you something about the RNC leadership?

The leading factor in what is killing the GOP today isn't as much entitlements as the fucking abject BLINDNESS the GOP voters operate under.

rbb said...

The Rmoney camp believed all polls were radical left wing polls and should not be trusted, so they invented a poll of their own, a poll with right wing slant and believed in it with all their might.

The actual result was an electoral landslide.

Nutters believed the beliefs.

RedState.comSaturday, March 2, 2013

ROMNEY INTERNAL POLLING — 337 Electoral Votes As Headlines Read: “Romney Ryan Landslide Victory”

...Along with Dick Morris the one honest pollster willing to make a landslide victory prediction for the Romney-Ryan ticket is Michael Barone with 315 electoral votes going to Romney. Here’s why he is right...


http://www.redstate.com/jamesmpratt/2012/11/05/romney-internal-polling-suggests-headlines-will-read-romney-ryan-landslide-victory/

Don't miss out on all news gop.
Visit Camp Liberty's Freedom Blog Today!

free0352 said...

They lost because fewer Republicans voted for Mitt than John McCain and don't you forget it. What? You think all those Republicans converted to Obama after his outstanding first term? Are you on crack?

Hoss said...

"....wrong on global warming and other economic issues"

Wow, something that's been so thoroughly refuted it's embarrassing anybody is still talking about it (it's climate change now, remember the global warming thing got busted as a sham so they had to re-brand), and straw-men. Awesome.

And the debt and President Downgrade's refusal to do anything about it (as emphasized by his stunning dismissal of Simspon/Bowles) is exactly why we got the ass kicking. And speaking of ass-kickings; Republicans took a shot to the teeth because we couldn't possibly believe America would willingly put up with a second-term of the abysmal failure that is Obama. Our bad. But, when you combine the nanny-staters with the takers you get a slight electoral advantage. Doesn't bode well for America, but that's the way it goes. Nothing good lasts forever.

Roboto said...

We assumed that Americans weren't dumb enough to vote for Carter's fourth term, and failed to take vote fraud into account.

Here's hoping we don't make the same mistakes again.

Roboto said...

We also discounted the Rasputin-like sway The Won has on his fan club.

Anonymous said...

Robo, please tell us all about Carter's 2nd term.

Roboto said...

mouse:

Jan. 20, 2009-Jan 20, 2013.

My bad, I meant THIRD term.

Nate said...

The irony of Zelda calling me uninformed on a post that is asking the question "why were we so poorly informed" is striking.

Because you and every other left wing spend-more-than-we-make jerk will refuse to limit your lust for more and more and more.
Once you start spending less than you take in there won't be a crisis.


Funny how when I propose cutting SS & Medicare for current retirees, none of you will agree with me.

Interesting Table

Seems to be no correlation between health of economy and tax revenue as a percentage of GDP.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Free0352:
I agree that we should all become more involved at the lowest levels of politics. I freely admit that includes me. I share the guilt.
I am nevertheless amazed that anyone who didn't vote would have the goddamned gall to quack about anyone else not being involved enough.
Frankly, I find the "you" are the reason we still have Comrade Hussein and "you" this and that to be very annoying coming from someone who threw a tantrum and didn't vote.
All the ranting about Romney and the other GOP leadership shows me that you STILL haven't thrown enough tantrums to have gotten over your hurt feelings. I ask you once again: Are you still all worked up because you supported some lunatic fringe that got steamrollered?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Tater, Zelda and Roboto summed it up pretty well.

Nit and reliably blathers bilge are, well, Nit and reliably blathers bilge.

CrabbyOldMan said...

See Enemas? You don't need all that much water.

Haverwilde said...

Nate:

“Funny how when I propose cutting SS & Medicare for current retirees, none of you will agree with me.”

You LIE!, of course being a leftist asswipe it comes with your total disregard for anything other than your own self disception.

All entitlements need to be cut. And the useless programs need to be axed!

Now where is your support for reducing expenditures?

Zelda said...

The GOP elites want to RUN the corruption, not end it.

I agree. But with each election the Democrats win, the more marginalized free market libertarians become, not only within the GOP, but in all of politics.

The irony of Zelda calling me uninformed on a post that is asking the question "why were we so poorly informed" is striking.

Nate, you're too uninformed to know the meaning of irony. Or to read, apparently.

Funny how when I propose cutting SS & Medicare for current retirees, none of you will agree with me.

Don't be stupid. Your proposals are a complete contradiction of everything you've ever said here. But since you voted for Obama who isn't going to cut anything, you have no credibility. There's no rational basis for a discussion.

Zelda said...

Oh, and Nate, take a look at how you word things. Seriously. You've had some kind of come-to-Jesus moment on entitlement spending, but then you demonize Crabby's generation instead of the government for spending them into bankruptcy. Instead of uniting to fight government corruption and wasteful spending, you turn the gun on regular people who had no control and even more weirdly, on people who never wanted those programs in the first place.

Anonymous said...

"You know, comrades," says Stalin, "that I think in regard to this: I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how."

CrabbyOldMan said...

I had forgotten that Stalin was from Chicago.

Nate said...

Sounds like I've hit a nerve. I guess the truth hurts.

Rickvid in Seattle said...

"Truth hurts." Usually just a way for someone to duck the argument, disregard the countervailing facts and information, and skip out the door declaring "Victory!" even in defeat. Expectable.

free0352 said...

I ask you once again: Are you still all worked up because you supported some lunatic fringe that got steamrollered?

No, just wouldn't vote for someone who not only broke the rules but broke the law. I wouldn't trade one corruption for the other.

Now I'm trying to clean help clean up one mess so there can be an alternative to the other.

Meanwhile, you admit you do nothing except toddled your crabby old ass down to a voting booth.

Nate said...

Rick,

The evidence that I see is clear. Nearly 90% of you couldn't see Romney was going to get steamrolled in the election. Contrary to all evidence, you clung to your delusions. Strange how I'm the one accused of the same thing.

CrabbyOldMan said...

FREE0352:
…who not only broke the rules but broke the law. I wouldn’t trade one corruption for the other. Please help me by providing specifics.
If all you got is “there is no difference between the Republicans and Democrats”, and actually believe that, I urge you to seek professional help.
If you are still screaming and kicking your heals on the ground because the Ron Paul delegates were kept from providing a feast of ridicule to the opposition by airing utterly asinine national security positions, you need to get over it. Hell, even the Marxocrats would have never bought those.
Now I’m trying to clean up one mess so there can be an alternative to the other from someone who allowed himself to be manipulated by the Disciples into tipping the election in the Messiah’s favor does not inspire confidence.
“Kamikaze” does NOT equal “principled”.
but toddled your crabby old ass down to a voting booth happens to be much better than what you did.

free0352 said...

Bottom line, if the party wants to win elections they're just going to have to offer someone worth voting for. That is why the GOP lost in 2012. I told you they would and they did. I don't know why that shocks anyone. Romney couldn't even beat McCain who got trounced by Obama. As for who to nominate next time, I would start with someone who doesn't commit election fraud to win the primary and isn't for socialized medicine. The only people who got manipulated here are the drones who ate the party line hook line and sinker. And now just bleat like sheep that government won't save them from Obama.

free0352 said...

As to the so named marginalization of free market libertarians, we can't lose. Socialism always fails because eventually you run out of other people's money. It will fail.

Nate said...

Thankfully, we've not embraced socialism.

Haverwilde said...

Nate with the continuing dishonesty of the left says:
“Thankfully, we've not embraced socialism.”
He forgot the rest: black is white, fairness is discrimination, the “most transparent administration” is the most corrupt,” “the middle class will not see one dime in additional taxes;” and on, and on ad nauseum. He is a parody of the vile dishonesty of his president.

free0352 said...

Socialism is when government takes control of the means of production Nate. What do you think these record breaking levels of regulation are? Now run along, I'm sure someone who understands economics needs their password reset.

Nate said...

Hi Free,

I wasn't aware of the Guinness Book of World Records had a section for government regulations. Which chapter is that?

Objectively Obama has privatized the banking system nationalized by the Bush administration. Even Obamacare focused on using markets to contain the cost of healthcare.

While I agree that regulation is not inline with laissez faire capitalism, I disagree that it constitutes or even approaches socialism.

CrabbyOldMan said...

I’d say that we all agree that the Conservative movement badly needs a charismatic leader. I think it is less well understood that leader has to have broad appeal to avoid temporary euphoria among the fringes followed by losing another election.
I agree with Free0352 as to what socialism is and that it is ruinous over both the midterm and the long run.
He has not said so, but I strongly suspect that Free0352, like me, sees rational economic and national security policies as trumping nearly everything else.
I agree with Free0352 and Haverwilde that Nit is a nitwit.
The only people who got manipulated here are the drones who ate the party line hook line and sinker is a bad case of denial, or, perhaps, projection. Who benefited from the bunched up Libertarian underwear?

Haverwilde said...

A democrat as president has the non-military areas of government buy over a billion rounds of ammo, and then has Homeland Security purchase over two thousand light tanks, and there is hardly a whisper. If Bush or any GOP pres had done that label of Fascism would be in all the newspapers. So our vile, corrupt, socialist, fascist leaning president, looks to be going down that classic road to full blow fascism.
I hope you enjoy your slavery Nate. At least you and your ilk deserve it.

Zelda said...

Only credible people can hit nerves, Nate. Your sudden desire to cut entitlement programs after voting for Obama makes you ridiculous.

Nate said...

Zelda, One of the major takeaways from this post is that you should be questioning the credibility of those that lead you to believe that Romney would win this election. In a hilarious twist of logic, my credibility is what you've started to question.
To be completely honest, I didn't vote for Obama in '12. Due to some last minute work travel, I wasn't able to vote period.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit: If I were you, I would never mention questioning the credibility of those that lead you. The other usefull fools should avoid those words too.

Zelda said...

Try to focus, Boo Boo. As I recall, you thought John Kerry was going to win. In fact, so many Democrats thought John Kerry would win, they had to go to therapy when he lost. It's not unreasonable for people to be overly optimistic.

What is unreasonable is knowing entitlement spending must be cut and then voting for Obama. How about - just for our amusement - you try to justify your vote. I'm morbidly curious as to your low-info rationale.

Zelda said...

Oh, and don't say you didn't vote. Get the fuck out of here if you didn't vote. After all your idiotic forays into political issues you know nothing about, please tell me you're not that much of a lazy coward.

Nate said...

Zelda,
Alas, I needed to work outside of my voting state on election day. Unfortunately I didn't know that I needed to travel until after early voting was over.

Obama has more credibility for reforming entitlements than Romney does. Anyone that is making 47% comments is going to be looked at with outright distrust by nearly half the population. The fact of the matter is that Obama is/was a better candidate despite all of the things he has done poorly. Logically both candidates' plan (if you consider Romney's musings a plan) only impacted future retirees, which means they are equal in my eyes. With fiscal issues equal, I'll go with the candidate that is socially liberal, thus why I would have voted for Obama, had I the chance.

Zelda said...

Alas nothing, you lazy, cowardly, little tax evading hypocrite. I'm not sure how you managed to give yourself even less credibility, but you have.

Obama has more credibility for reforming entitlements than Romney does.

And yet there is no logical basis for this retarded opinion.

Anyone that is making 47% comments is going to be looked at with outright distrust by nearly half the population.

Um, Boo Boo? That made Romney more credible than Obama on entitlement reform. We can't afford to have 47% of the population dependent on the government. That's unsustainable.

Logically both candidates' plan (if you consider Romney's musings a plan) only impacted future retirees, which means they are equal in my eyes.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sentence reads? Logically?

With fiscal issues equal, I'll go with the candidate that is socially liberal, thus why I would have voted for Obama, had I the chance.

I guess instead of entitlement reform you'll settle for free breast exams. You know, for your teats.

Nate said...

Zelda, You've regressed back to JPCK level.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda: This is one of those days that I can't decide if Nit or Knot is the best match.

Zelda said...

No one cares, Boo Boo. Why don't you whine about your teats some more? Priceless, comment, btw. I'm sad you deleted it.

Hoss said...

"Even Obamacare focused on using markets to contain the cost of healthcare."

I hate to pile on, Nate, but this statement is just dumb as fuck. If you're using this as an argument that Obama really is a free-market kind of guy, what would it take to get you to see that he has virtually nationalized it without the ownership papers. He tells insurance companies how much they have to spend out of premiums, how much vendors (doctors) in the system can be paid (maximum), who must be covered regardless of qualifications or disqualifications (I remember the leftists telling us that high-risk people with pre-existing conditions being added to the pool would decrease our costs. That's almost as fucking stupid as saying we have to pass a bill to see what's in it), what procedures/wants must be covered - and at no cost to the recipient, at that, and so on. If this is an open-market approach in your eyes then you have a very dismal view of the concept of freedom and free markets.

Nate said...

Hoss,
I'm not convinced that you understand what the term nationalized means. Obamacare indeed regulates, but I don't see any (new) government owned health care organization, nor does it take ownership of any existing health care organizations. It does provide for statewide health insurance markets, and a nationwide market for states that do not wish to create their own. The goal of these markets is to allow consumers to comparison shop, and have insurers compete for consumers.

At an aggregate level, health insurance does decrease costs, because it decreases very expensive emergency room visits by providing inexpensive primary care. A trip to a primary care physician costs about $70, of which the consumer pays $20-30. A trip to the emergency room starts at $800, and all services are marked up about 1000%.

RufussVa said...

"At an aggregate level, health insurance does decrease costs, because it decreases very expensive emergency room visits by providing inexpensive primary care. A trip to a primary care physician costs about $70, of which the consumer pays $20-30."

But my insurance cost have gone up 66% since this crap was passed. This is nowhere near a decrease in cost.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit told Hoss I'm not convinced that you understand what the term nationalized means.
Apparently, Nit thinks that there is a difference between the politicians controlling an industry because the government owns it and the politicians controlling an industry because they have unlimited power to regulate it. The result is the same either way because politicians rather than market forces are in control.
I continue to be amazed that fools like Nit are either are too stupid or too straightjacketed by ideology to grasp the historical lessons that are easily available to all.

Zelda said...

Insurance companies, both government and private, are the cause of skyrocketing healthcare rates. Insurance companies have to collect more than they pay out, so over the course of your life, you will pay far more for insurance than you will for healthcare. Now when insurance companies and the government short change doctors, hospitals, drug and medical device companies, the costs of healthcare begin to rise.

Somehow our own Honey Boo Boo has convinced himself that rising healthcare costs are going to be checked by forcing people to buy the same product - AT HIGHER PRICES - that causes the rise in the first place.

Logic and reason at their zenith, but then these are the people who think the failures of banks that make bad loans are going to be corrected by forcing them to make bad loans.

Haverwilde said...

Communism: Property is owned by the government, and an elite cadre of people controls the wealth and everything in the country.
Fascism: Property is owned by people and corporations, but the government made up of an elite cadre of people (government statists and the industry Soroses) controls the wealth and everything in the country.
Socialism: Is just a mixture of the two above, and the same elite cadre of people making themselves wealthy and controlling everything.

It is time for a second American Revolution.

Nate said...

COM,

The main problem with laissez faire is a concept called externalities. Imagine someone finds shale oil underneath your neighbor's property. Your neighbor sells the drilling rights, and takes the money to live in Tahiti. The drilling company injects nasty compounds into the ground to get the shale oil, and these chemicals destroy the value of your property, and result in health issues for your family. You have no recompense, and there was no way to prevent this action without government intervention. Do you agree that the government should be obligated to protect you from polluters?

Zelda said...

Boo Boo, how on earth do you use that to justify government regulation of all industry and control of the profits?

CrabbyOldMan said...

The main problem with Nit is a concept called stupid straw man arguments.
First of all, you have never seen me argue for strict laissez faire.
Secondly, under the example you use, I would sue for consequential damages and win.
Thirdly, I have yet to see any actual documented cases of the dire consequences of fracking in Nit’s straw man.
Finally, the obligation of the government to protect me from polluters is a matter of the actual, rather than the imagined, harm. That is, the government SHOULD NOT “protect” me from someone smoking in the park.

Nate said...

COM,
First: So please clarify, if you are against socialism, and regulations are considered socialism, and the term for capitalism unfettered by regulation or government interference is laissez faire, what exactly did I say that was a strawman?

WRT to thirdly, that is exactly the argument that the polluters make during your lawsuit, and why your lawsuit would probably bankrupt you. Good luck proving anything without peer reviewed research. Good luck getting peer reviewed research without paying a huge sum of money for studies, or relying on government grants. Grants that you are unwilling to make taxpayers pay for.

Hoss said...

Good God, Nate, if you think Obamacare is merely a set of regulations than you must think that having somebody tell you what time to get up in the morning and what time to go to bed, who you can associate with and for how long, how much of your paycheck you must spend on items X, Y, and Z, and who you must live in your house/apartment with you is you merely being "governed." As I stated, that you must have missed, Obama and Team Jackass have virtually taken over health care in this country without grabbing all the ownership papers. But, let's make it clear, the bureaucrats are definitley running it.

And, wow, the left just now acknowledging that interstate competition would be healthier for the consumer. That's a first, democrats have voted aginst such Republican measures for years. But we know the only reason they're for it now is because they have a large hand in controlling it. And in the aggregate, you may want to ensure that people are using primary physicians for medical care versus the emergency room (facts not in evidence) before you use that as a major prop of your argument.

Zelda said...

This is nonsense. You can't implement any economic system with absolute purity. But handing over control of your healthcare to a bloated, inefficient, corrupt government because you want the government to have the power to reimburse you for imaginary losses due to imaginary destruction of imaginary property by an imaginary company is pretty fucking stupid.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
Wipe off your glasses and turn up your hearing aid!
I repeat that I have never argued for a pure lasses faire economy.

Do you advocate awarding civil damages based upon actual proven damages or on the basis of hypothetical damages suggested by “peer reviewed research” like that “proving” man-made global warming?

I ask again if you can cite any real cases.

Haverwilde said...

Nate,
You are such an ass. Hypothetical leftist drivel puked out to justify government control over nonexistent consequences of supposed potential problems. The mind wearies at trying to hold all these hypotheticals.
Law: you damage my property by an action that can be anticipated, you are liable.
You drill for shale oil 7000 feet below the water aquifer I draw my water from? Well guess what, it has never been shown to have any measureable effect. My neighbor is free to do it, and so am I. Given the chance I would be drilling several weeks before my neighbor does.
You puke out all these leftist talking points, and still refuse to face the fact that you are supporting the most corrupt administration in modern American history. And that is just fine with you. You piss on the constitution, you crap on the civil rights of Americans and continue to point your finger at those naught republicans that go along with it. I hope you enjoy your slavery.

Nate said...

Ok, COM, Let me pose you the question. What should be the role of government in the economy?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
The basic public policy should be to keep the government out of the economy as much as is possible. That said, the government should nevertheless provide those things without which there could be no economy more productive than the medieval economies. Those things include:
1.Law and order.
2.An impartial court system to enforce contracts.
3.A sound money supply.
4.A sound banking/credit system.
5.A strong national defense and credible diplomacy (to facilitate foreign trade).
It is my personal conviction that it would be enormously beneficial for us to adopt the English system of looser-pay-all-the-costs in our civil courts. I also think that it would benefit all of us if the government preserved completion by preventing monopolies and cartels by either businesses or unions.
The government should definitely NOT use its power to regulate commerce to force us to buy water saver toilets and electric cars or pay off Jug Ears’ political contributors.

Nate said...

COM,

Conspicuously absent is any method of dealing with shared resources. How do you deal with entities emitting mercury into the air? Dumping pollution into waterways? Overusing water?

Do you think the government should prohibit the sale or ownership of anything? What about child labor? Do you think that the government should be tasked with education?

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
The items in your first paragraph can all be addressed by the civil courts.
Shame on you if you include ethanol production as "overusing" water. What would Al think?
The items in your second paragraph should all be addressed by the various states for those states, NOT the national government.

Nate said...

COM,

Isn't that just de-facto regulation, and wouldn't the courts be pretty terrible at it?

From a practical standpoint, who would you be suing? Which mercury emitter? Proving damages would also be quite challenging, since it is nearly impossible to attribute a disability or cancer to one factor.

I think we tried that with slavery. It didn't work out too well.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
No!
Proving damages is the whole idea.
I have been unaware that slavery was regulated away.

Nate said...

You distill it beautifully. Even COM knows that mercury causes birth defects, cancer and a whole host of medical problems. Yet in Com's optimal world, we couldn't prevent entities from dropping it in the water supply. We'd have to try and sue the dozens of companies that may have contributed and prove damages. Which company was responsible? Good luck in finding out!

The emancipation proclamation telling us we can't own slaves is simply a regulation, and also questionable restraint on interstate commerce? Or what do you mean by regulation?

free0352 said...

I suppose then Nate we should then assume that there are no chemical spills in this world, and that the EPA has done a wonderful job fighting pollution.

I would also remind you son, that judges seldom convict anyone in this country. Sentence maybe, but not convict. We have a jury system in America after all.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Nit:
You don't.
The states have the power to make it illegal to dump mercury into the water supply.
What is wrong with having to prove damages? Should I be able to simply claim that you being an idiot has damaged me and be able to collect without proving those damages?

Zelda said...

Oh don't confuse him, Free. His teats are bothering him.

And Crabby, don't let him turn this into some kind of environmental straw man when he originally made it about Obamacare.

Try to focus there, Nate.

free0352 said...

Just remember that Obama made it a law that you HAVE to not only buy insurance from ginormous insurance companies, but you have to buy the most expensive kind. Even if you're a super healthy 20 year old yoga instructor vegetarian health freak.

CrabbyOldMan said...

Zelda:
"His teats are bothering him." is an absolute thigh slapper!