#37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s

[Kurt Nicklas]

37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney’s views are in the
mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President Obama’s
views.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely
Voters shows that 51% regard Romney’s views as mainstream. Thirty-
seven percent (37%) say it would be more accurate to describe the
presumptive GOP nominee’s views as extreme. (To see survey question
wording, click here.)

Views of the president are more evenly divided. While 44% believe it’s
accurate to describe President Obama’s views as mainstream, 47%
describe his views as extreme.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our
polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or
Facebook.

The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on July 29-30,
2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3
percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all
Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
See methodology.

[Gray Guest]

Kurt Nicklas <kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:159f25f2-bf96-4cc8-ac83-
b06a91...@j8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

>
> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>

If someone considers Romney extreme, what kind aof a fringe moonbat are they?

--
Refusenik #1

[deep]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
<kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:

>37% Consider Romney�s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama�s
>
>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>

Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or
another.

We both know you can't. All you and your leftist hood pals can do is
guess.

And we know what a guess is, don't we?

_____________
"Again, you're guess[sic]. That's lying." -Look-Guessing is
Lying-out"
Message-ID: <3iha06tfmrskb5jsb...@4ax.com>

"But you tried to imply. That's lying." -Look-Implying is Lying-Out"
Message-ID: <1s15j65bthnpqu89l...@4ax.com>

[deep]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>
>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>
>>
>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>
>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or
>another.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

>
>We both know you can't. All you and your leftist hood pals can do is
>guess.

Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased, overestimating the
standing of the Republican candidate by almost 4 points on average. In
just 12 cases, Rasmussen’s polls overestimated the margin for the
Democrat by 3 or more points. But it did so for the Republican
candidate in 55 cases — that is, in more than half of the polls that
it issued.

>
>And we know what a guess is, don't we?

Like when you guess that a bullet won't deflect off ballistic plates
and you guessed wrong?

Rasmussen's polls are clearly biased right wing and the data proves
it.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>
>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>
>>>
>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>
>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or
>>another.
>
>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/

All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls
were "biased."

In other words, a guess.

>>We both know you can't. All you and your leftist hood pals can do is
>>guess.
>
>Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased

You already said that.

But you have no facts.

>>And we know what a guess is, don't we?
>
>Like when you guess

Why does what *I* do have any bearing on you? Do you want to be like
me? Are you finally confessing your admiration and affection?

[John]

We know that PRAVDA, abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, msnbc and pbs are nothing but a
left wing propaganda shill.

[3109 Dead]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/
election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/
july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>>
>>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or another.
>>
>>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-
were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>
> All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
> the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls were
> "biased."
>
> In other words, a guess.

No, an analysis of the fact that Rasmussen is consistantly a right-
leaning outlier.

[deep]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

<klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>>
>>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or
>>>another.
>>
>>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>
>All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
>the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls
>were "biased."

It's called push polling (questions cleverly worded to get the desired
responses) and selective sampling (sample population is not chosen
randomly rather with bias). Well known Rasmussen techniques.

http://themoderatevoice.com/147016/one-biased-conservative-poll-does-not-an-election-make/


In discussing Rasmussen, along with the Cato Institute, the article
had this to say:

The Rasmussen poll, like the Cato Institute, is seen by some
analysts also as a conservative, largely Republican group whose poll
questions are set up to solicit, and obtain, conservative opinions.

As Silver himself put it, perhaps treading somewhat carefully on the
question of bias:

What it does mean, though, is that when you’re evaluating the
polls in a particular race, you need to take an especially long look
at who’s conducting them. If you tell me that the latest poll has the
Republican up by two points in Colorado, that’s going to mean one
thing if it’s Research 2000 telling me that and quite another if it’s
Rasmussen.

>In other words, a guess.
>
>>>We both know you can't. All you and your leftist hood pals can do is
>>>guess.
>>
>>Moreover, Rasmussen’s polls were quite biased
>
>You already said that.
>
>But you have no facts.

Google 'rasmussen poll bias' and you will see hundreds of studies have
proven Rasmussen inaccurate and constantly skewed conservative.

>
>
>>>And we know what a guess is, don't we?
>>
>>Like when you guess
>
>Why does what *I* do have any bearing on you? Do you want to be like
>me? Are you finally confessing your admiration and affection?

I just enjoy humiliating you. Sick part is you like it.

[deep]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 20:37:32 -0500, John <john...@oldwest.net>
wrote:

Oh right. Huge news conglomerates owned by massive ultra wealthy
corporations are all a bunch of radical communists.

yea, right. And keep hoping the Easter Bunny will bring you chocolate
eggs.

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Aug 2, 9:41 pm, 3109 Dead <d...@gone.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:

> >>deep <d...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
> >>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

> >><klausschadenfre...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>deep <d...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>
> >>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
> >>>><kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>
> >>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/
>
> election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/
> july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>
> >>>>Oh fuck off.  When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
> >>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>
> >>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or another.
>
> >>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-
>
> were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>
>
>
> > All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
> > the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls were
> > "biased."
>
> > In other words, a guess.
>
> No, an analysis of the fact that Rasmussen is consistantly a right-
> leaning outlier.

Coming from someone who called 2000 and 2004 as solid wins for Gore
and Kerry I have
to wonder what that makes YOU, Pampers.

<snickers>

[azbobby]

Kurt Nicklas wrote:
> 37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>

> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...

>
> Thursday, August 02, 2012
>
> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney’s views are in the
> mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President Obama’s
> views.
>
> The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely
> Voters shows that 51% regard Romney’s views as mainstream. Thirty-
> seven percent (37%) say it would be more accurate to describe the
> presumptive GOP nominee’s views as extreme. (To see survey question
> wording, click here.)
>
> Views of the president are more evenly divided. While 44% believe it’s
> accurate to describe President Obama’s views as mainstream, 47%
> describe his views as extreme.
>
> (Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our
> polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or
> Facebook.
>
> The survey of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters was conducted on July 29-30,
> 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3
> percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all
> Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC.
> See methodology.

This election is all about women's reproductive rights, Gays getting
married and health insurance for those of us who can afford it. If
everyone gets health insurance, there won't be enough health care to
go around and we'll all be in big trouble.

What bugs me big time is how Arizona is back to 8.6% unemployment, but
being government hating, rugged individualists, the cuts to the
military will drive the bloody unemployment sky high!

We only need the government so those military bases will keep us
working.

[3109 Dead]

Very good. You've established yourself as an idiot.

[Scout]

"3109 Dead" <de...@gone.com> wrote in message
news:jvffet$lup$1...@dont-email.me...

Congratulations, you've now found someone like yourself.

[pyotr filipivich]

Let the Record show that Gray Guest <No_email...@wahoo.com> on or
about Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:41:17 +0000 (UTC) did write, type or
otherwise cause to appear in talk.politics.guns the following:

Obama TrueBeleiver. The ones who felt that they were going to
have their mortgage paid by Obama. Fans of. Air-America.
--
pyotr filipivich
Next Month's Panel: Suicide - getting it right the first time.

[Steve]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 01:41:56 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/
>election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/
>july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>>>
>>>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or another.
>>>
>>>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-
>were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>>
>> All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
>> the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls were
>> "biased."
>>
>> In other words, a guess.
>
>No, an analysis of the fact that Rasmussen is consistantly a right-
>leaning outlier.

<LOL> ...except that Rasmussen has a habit of hitting the nail on the
head as he did in the last presidential election.

[Steve]

<ROTFL> Of course all the "studies" that "show" rasmussen to be
skewed to the right are run by Democrats who want to see polls skewed
to the left.

Rasmussen is consistently correct, as it was in Wisconsin a short
while ago.

[Syd M.]

On Aug 2, 8:41 pm, Gray Guest <No_email_for_...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote in news:159f25f2-bf96-4cc8-ac83-
> b06a913c0...@j8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:

>
>
>
> > 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>
> If someone considers Romney extreme, what kind aof a fringe moonbat are they?
>
>

A sensible kind.

[Syd M.]

On Aug 2, 7:37 pm, Kurt Nicklas <kurtnick...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>
>

I love the smell of rightwing desperation, don't you?

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>3109 Dead <de...@gone.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
>
>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/
>election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/
>july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>>>
>>>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or another.
>>>
>>>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-
>were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>>
>> All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
>> the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls were
>> "biased."
>>
>> In other words, a guess.
>
>No, an analysis of the fact that Rasmussen is consistantly a right-
>leaning outlier.

No, a guess.

The article says they don't like the outcome of their polls. THAT is
their proof.

[chuckle]

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>37% Consider Romney’s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama’s
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh fuck off. When are you rightards going to accept that Rasmussen is
>>>>>nothing but a right wing propaganda shill.
>>>>
>>>>Let's see your data proving their polls are slanted one way or
>>>>another.
>>>
>>>http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/
>>
>>All that says is that they didn't like the outcome. No mention of HOW
>>the poll was conducted, WHAT questions were asked, of WHY the polls
>>were "biased."
>
>It's called push polling (questions cleverly worded to get the desired
>responses)

I know what it is. Leftist anti-gun pollsters use it all the time.

Funny, I never see you complain about it then.

[deep]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:47:42 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude

Prove it. Another one of your lies. I've proven Rasmussen is biased.
You provide proof.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

No, you haven't. NOt even close.

The ONLY thing you've proven is you can find an article where some
left-wing-nut says they're biased, and they base their claim on the
fact that many of their poll outcomes favor the right.

>You provide proof.

Provide proof that I've never seen you complain about leftist anti-gun
pollsters?

[Steve]

<LOL> Foolish leftists believe their opinions constitute proof.

>You provide proof.

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

>Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :

That's basically it.

Poll provides response.
Response not what he likes.
Proof response is a lie.

Dudu just can't comprehend a world where there are different opinions
of The Dear Leader.

He's swallowing all that leftist pablum, why aren't they?

[chuckle]

[3109 Dead]

So either you didn't read the cite at all, or you did, and you're just
another desperate right wing liar.

Either way, you're a waste of time.

[3109 Dead]

With Knickers, that stench is always there.

[3109 Dead]

He's like me because he believes something I consider idiotic?

Tell us MORE, chuckles!

[Klaus Schadenfreude]

I'm right.

Results leaned too far to the right.

That's PROOF it's wrong.

[chuckle]

[MarkA]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:

> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>

> Thursday, August 02, 2012
>
> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are in the
> mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President Obama's
> views.
>

I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of the GOP.

It's pretty sad when having the government use its power to help provide a
safety net for everyone to have a decent quality of life, with jobs,
health care, clean air, clean water, a safe place to work, protection from
discrimination, etc, is seen as "extreme".

--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock

[Steve]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:16:32 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
wrote:

>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
>> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>>
>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>
>> Thursday, August 02, 2012
>>
>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are in the
>> mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President Obama's
>> views.
>>
>
>I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of the GOP.

Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.

[deep]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:25:14 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

It's statistics, you fucking moron. Rasmussen is skewed right FROM
ALL OTHER POLLS. Get it moron? It's in the numbers. It's NOT
OPINION. There's a science of mathematics called statistics. It can
be used to prove things mathematically. That proves Rasmussen to be
highly skewed towards conservative causes. Just because you can't
comprehend the math doesn't mean it's simply opinion.

Now provide your proof Klaus, you lying ass toady.

[3109 Dead]

In fact, there were 27 major polls tracking the '08 election. Twenty-six
of the twenty seven were within the MoE of 3.5 points. Only one wasn't.

Guess which one it was, and which direction it slanted in?

[Steve]

Nope, Rasmussen polls likely voters and Democrats are not as likely to
vote... and besides, Rusmussen has a record of being the most
accurate.

Get it moron? It's in the numbers. It's NOT
>OPINION. There's a science of mathematics called statistics. It can

<CHUCKLE> You obviously have no understanding of statistics.. so
all you have are opinions.

>be used to prove things mathematically. That proves Rasmussen to be
>highly skewed towards conservative causes. Just because you can't
>comprehend the math doesn't mean it's simply opinion.
>
>Now provide your proof Klaus, you lying ass toady.

Leftists seem to believe that if they wish for something often enough.
it will come true...

[Steve]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:33:01 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>

wrote:

>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 08:48:55 -0600, deep wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 09:25:14 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 06:52:35 -0600, deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 04:47:42 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:31:01 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:08:27 -0700, Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>><klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>deep <de...@dudu.org> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 2 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700 (PDT), Kurt Nicklas
>>>>>>>>>><kurtn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>37% Consider Romney?s Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama?s

Of course, Rasmussen was the closest to the actual outcome..

[MarkA]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:30:34 -0400, Steve wrote:

> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:16:32 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>
>>> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>>>
>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>
>>> Thursday, August 02, 2012
>>>
>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are in the
>>> mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President Obama's
>>> views.
>>>
>>>
>>I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of the GOP.
>
> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.

It's easy to believe the truth.

>
>>It's pretty sad when having the government use its power to help provide
>>a safety net for everyone to have a decent quality of life, with jobs,
>>health care, clean air, clean water, a safe place to work, protection
>>from discrimination, etc, is seen as "extreme".

--
MarkA

If you can read this, you can stop reading now.

[Steve]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:20:31 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?

[MarkA]

You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human necessities
and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much more nuanced than that.

[Lee Curtiss]

Conservatives hate government safety nets until THEIR area gets hit with a
natural disaster.

[Steve]

On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:26:28 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT of
happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading. Protection
from discrimination under some circumstances does... to a limited
extent, workplace safety does... Getting you a job, health care and
your human necessities is your responsibility unless you are
handicapped or a child.

[Scout]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.08.04....@somewhere.invalid...

Protecting? Sure. PROVIDING.... that's something else

So tell me, how exactly do you plan to pay for providing these necessities
to people who simply refuse to do meaningful work?

Give them a job where they can simply sit at home and do what they want?

When exactly did it become the job of government to support the lazy?

>My world is much more nuanced than that.

Feel free to buy all the 'necessities' for other people that you
chose....but keep your hands out of my pockets.

[Lee Curtiss]

Typical greedhead conservative. The government benefits YOU use are
necessities, everyone else using them are parasites.

[MarkA]

There is no question that some people "game the system", and exploit
government benefits they should not be entitled to. It doesn't matter if
it is the otherwise able-bodied laborer collecting welfare/disability, or
the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation exploiting a tax
"loop-hole"; the effect is the same.

However, there are plenty of people out there who really do need temporary
assistance, just as there are legitimate reasons for giving large
corporations tax breaks and subsidies in some circumstances. Just because
a few bucks slip through the cracks is no reason to reject the whole
system.

If you would rather see people starving to death in the streets, just so
you don't have to worry that someone is getting some benefit they don't
deserve, you are not the kind of person I would share a country with, if I
had a choice. But, I don't, so we are stuck with each other.

[MarkA]

I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as part of
"protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare". Protecting jobs
isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
the government.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:17 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

There are many perfectly healthy people who spend their entire lives
living off some sort of welfare.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:05:10 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to
provide it.. which infringes on their rights

> Protecting jobs
>isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
>the government.

Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means
that you infringe upon an employer's rights.

[Lee Curtiss]

Ditto for police protection and fire protection. Do those infringe on your
"rights" just because government provides them?

>
>> Protecting jobs
>> isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
>> the government.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means
> that you infringe upon an employer's rights.

What "employers rights"?

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 16:53:08 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yes.. fire protection definitely is to a certain extent...

>>> Protecting jobs
>>> isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
>>> the government.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means
>> that you infringe upon an employer's rights.
>
>What "employers rights"?

My right as an employer to hire whomever I want and pay them what
he/she and I agree upon. Anyway, I don't do that anymore. Now days I
outsource or hire temps... so if I don't like the work, I just
terminate them.

[MarkA]

No doubt that is true. Just like there are people with handicapped
parking stickers who can walk just as well as I can.

Some people are assholes. It would be nice if they could be executed for
it, but in the long run, it's probably better that they can't be. Sure, I
resent people getting something that *I* work for that they don't deserve,
but I console myself with the belief that I am less ass-holy than they,
and that overall, their numbers are small.

Again, because the system isn't perfect doesn't mean that it isn't worth
it.

>
>>If you would rather see people starving to death in the streets, just so
>>you don't have to worry that someone is getting some benefit they don't
>>deserve, you are not the kind of person I would share a country with, if
>>I had a choice. But, I don't, so we are stuck with each other.

[3109 Dead]

Heh. Police protection sure infringed on his rights. Four to six years of
them. Heh heh heh.

[MarkA]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:18:56 -0400, Steve wrote:

You could say the same thing about the army, or the National Forest
Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all, paid for by the
contributions of all.

Clearly, the question of universal health care is a contentious issue,
with valid arguments on both sides. Though I am not generally a "big
government" person, it seems to me that the for-profit model of health
care delivery is deeply flawed, and no amount of bandaids will fix the
basic problems. To be living in one of the most "advanced" civilized
countries, where people can, and do, go bankrupt overnight because of an
unexpected medical event, *even if they HAVE insurance*, is unconscionable
to me. We spend more for our health care, and have shittier results to
show for it, than any other Western nation. The only ones benefiting from
the current system are the HMO execs who are making multi-million dollar
salaries by denying health services.

You can have all sorts of worries about how the government might make
things worse, but the current system is bad enough that I don't think the
government could make it *much* worse. In fact, even if you just made
completely random changes, the opportunity to make things better is far
greater than the opportunity to make things worse.

>
>> Protecting jobs
>>isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
>>the government.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means that
> you infringe upon an employer's rights.

Employees should also have rights, and they will often conflict with those
of the employer. However, the government can create economic incentives
or penalties for companies to move to foreign countries or stay at home.
I drive a Honda, made in Ohio, while my neighbor drives a Ford, made in
Mexico. Go figure.

[Oglethorpe]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message

news:pan.2012.08.05....@somewhere.invalid...

It's not government's duty to provide for it's citizens

[3109 Dead]

Yes, actually, it is.

[Steve]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 23:34:24 +0000 (UTC), 3109 Dead <de...@gone.com>

Porky Jamieson likes to pretend that people other than himself have
had troubles with the law. It makes his own failures hurt less.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:37:05 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

Some things are essential for the survival of the country. The things
you speak of are simply for survival of individuals.

>Clearly, the question of universal health care is a contentious issue,
>with valid arguments on both sides. Though I am not generally a "big
>government" person, it seems to me that the for-profit model of health
>care delivery is deeply flawed, and no amount of bandaids will fix the
>basic problems. To be living in one of the most "advanced" civilized
>countries, where people can, and do, go bankrupt overnight because of an
>unexpected medical event, *even if they HAVE insurance*, is unconscionable
>to me. We spend more for our health care, and have shittier results to
>show for it, than any other Western nation. The only ones benefiting from
>the current system are the HMO execs who are making multi-million dollar
>salaries by denying health services.
>
>You can have all sorts of worries about how the government might make
>things worse, but the current system is bad enough that I don't think the
>government could make it *much* worse. In fact, even if you just made
>completely random changes, the opportunity to make things better is far
>greater than the opportunity to make things worse.
>
>>
>>> Protecting jobs
>>>isn't really a right, so much as an item of financial self-interest for
>>>the government.
>>
>> Depends on what you mean by "protecting jobs." Generally it means that
>> you infringe upon an employer's rights.
>
>Employees should also have rights, and they will often conflict with those
>of the employer.

Simple solution here.. Let the relationship between employer and
employee be the result of an un interfered-with agreement between the
two of them.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2012 18:38:31 -0700, "Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

So say sociopaths.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:24:35 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
wrote in alt.atheism:

It is sad that there are so many selfish people who use a few failures
as an excuse to help anyone.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

As an excuse to refuse to help anyone.

The GOP comes to mind.

[Lee Curtiss]

We tried that and it didn't work. Children working in coal mines, women
burning to death in unsafe sweatshops, amputattions from unshielded
machinery. Workers deserve better than that.

[Lee Curtiss]

That is exactly what government is for. Read some history.

[Oglethorpe]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.08.05....@somewhere.invalid...

NOPE. Thoise are services paid for by tax revenues. No one fines you for not
going to the national parks.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:51:48 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>
wrote:

None of that has anything to do with an employer's right to hire
whomever he wants and pay them whatever the two agree upon.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:54 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

Can you provide a good reason why I should bother to help you?

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

I need no excuse not to help you.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:13:16 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

Me personally? No. The idea is that we need to help others in general to
keep our society healthy. The right-wing has made it clear that they
want our society to fall the way the corruption of Rome destroyed the
Republic.

[Don Kresch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:05:10 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

scrawled in blood:

It is.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:25:57 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

No we don't.. we should help those who are handicapped. The rest of
you are on your own. I owe you nothing.

>The right-wing has made it clear that they
>want our society to fall the way the corruption of Rome destroyed the
>Republic.

I think they just want clowns like you to mind your own business.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:35:50 -0500, Don Kresch <spam...@spamcatch.org>
wrote in alt.atheism:

Says the man who thinks it is terrible that the US Constitution says
that we should provide for the common welfare.

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:41:16 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:

Make that "general Welfare of the United States." That's rather
different from the leftists claim that the government should take care
of them.

[Free Lunch]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:45:17 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>

How does ignoring those in need provide for the general welfare of the
United States?

[Steve]

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:51:44 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>

I'm all for taking care of children and the handicapped. The country
is way better off without you lazy losers that can't support
yourselves.

[3109 Dead]

Take it up with Justice Roberts.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-08-05 20:20, Steve a �crit :

It's been done. Didn't work. A third party, with some arbitration power,
had more success.

[Olrik]

Le 2012-08-05 21:38, Oglethorpe a �crit :

You must have a funny definition for �provide�.

Besides, it's �its citizens�.

[Olrik]

Well, I thank you for your frankness.

[Scout]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message

news:pan.2012.08.05....@somewhere.invalid...
> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 16:06:36 -0400, Steve wrote:

>
>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 14:26:28 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:43:28 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:20:31 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:30:34 -0400, Steve wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:16:32 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/july_2012/37_consider_romney_s_views_extreme_47_say_same_of_obama_s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thursday, August 02, 2012
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Voters are more likely to believe Mitt Romney's views are in the
>>>>>>>> mainstream than extreme, but are evenly divided on President
>>>>>>>> Obama's views.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I believe Obama's views are extremely superior to those of the GOP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course you do. All you parasites believe that.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's easy to believe the truth.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's pretty sad when having the government use its power to help
>>>>>>>provide a safety net for everyone to have a decent quality of life,
>>>>>>>with jobs, health care, clean air, clean water, a safe place to work,
>>>>>>>protection from discrimination, etc, is seen as "extreme".
>>>>
>>>> Do you expect the nanny government to tuck you in bed, too?
>>>
>>>You *SERIOUSLY* see no space between protecting basic human necessities

>>>and tucking everyone into bed? My world is much more nuanced than that.
>>
>> The only things the government is obliged to protect for you is life,
>> liberty and the pursuit of happiness... that's your PURSUIT of
>> happiness. Clean air and water fall under that heading. Protection from
>> discrimination under some circumstances does... to a limited extent,
>> workplace safety does... Getting you a job, health care and your human
>> necessities is your responsibility unless you are handicapped or a child.
>
> I don't think it's a stretch to include universal healthcare as part of
> "protecting life" and "promoting the general welfare".

Sorry, but the government doesn't protect your life. They protect your right
to life. They are under no obligation to provide you with anything to keep
you alive.

Otherwise, I want my own M16A2, a high speed printing press, church, radio
station and exclusive personal lawyer. Provided for free by the government,
of course.


And how does giving you free health care....promote the general welfare for
me....or even society as a whole?

After all, when I have to pay for your health care, that's having an impact
on my general welfare, and it's not a positive impact either.

[Scout]

"MarkA" <som...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2012.08.05....@somewhere.invalid...

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:18:56 -0400, Steve wrote:
>

>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:05:10 -0400, MarkA <som...@somewhere.invalid>

>> You cannot "provide" healthcare without forcing someone else to provide
>> it.. which infringes on their rights
>
> You could say the same thing about the army, or the National Forest
> Service. It is a service provided for the benefit of all, paid for by the
> contributions of all.

True, but the government has the specific authority to operate an army. I'm
not sure there is any clause in the Constitution that addresses a National
Forest Service though maintaining public property might cover it. What I
don't see is anything that says they have to provide you or anyone else with
free health care.

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message
news:058u1896fe53618r6...@4ax.com...

Yep, and paying for the health care of individuals....is not providing for
the common welfare.

Besides, that clause has already been determined to apply only to those
powers specifically granted.

I see no power granted to control your health.

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:6n8u18dl7lk6ak803...@4ax.com...

Keeps us from going bankrupt attempting to do so.

[Lee Curtiss]

You think employers that a "right" to hire children and put them to work in
dangerous conditions?

[Lee Curtiss]

Does that include those who become handicapped in the unsafe sweatshops you
endorse?

[Steve]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:53:36 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>

<CHUCKLE> This discussion is not about children. That you try to
make it about children tells me that you don't really have an
argument.

[Steve]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:53:39 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>
wrote:

If you're stupid enough to agree to work in a sweat shop you're on
your own..

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 02:35:03 -0400, "Scout"
<me4...@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in alt.atheism:

But repeatedly cutting taxes for the very rich so the GOP can run
massive deficits during good economic times does not help our economic
situation.

[Lee Curtiss]

And to think rightwingers accuse OTHERS of "blaming the victim". You guys
are such hypocrites...

[Lee Curtiss]

Paying for the health care of individuals no different from paying for the
education of individuals, constitutionally.

Are you opposed to public education as well?

[3109 Dead]

Cite.

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:u56v18p94b68b17ho...@4ax.com...

I note your confusion of the nature of the tax cuts, who they mostly reduced
taxes for, and how much 'lost' revenue from the very rich was actually lost.

I will simply not that in your desire to change the subject, you have
surrendered your position on health care.

[Steve]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:03:52 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>

<LOL> As always, the leftists think of themselves as victims when
they are merely having to suffer the consequences of their own
irresponsible behavior.

[Lee Curtiss]

Typical rightist - all on the job injuries are the fault of the worker
because all employers are always blameless.

[Kurt Nicklas]

On Aug 6, 5:25 pm, Lee Curtiss <cleet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:03:52 -0500, Lee Curtiss <cleet...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 01:53:39 -0500, Lee Curtiss <cleet...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:

>
> >>>> Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:25:57 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>>> wrote:
>

> >>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:13:16 -0400, Steve <stevencan...@yahooooo.com>

> >>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:54 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:44:13 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
> >>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>

> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 19:24:35 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

> >>>>>>>>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:18:56 -0400, Steve wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:17 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 19:09:47 -0400, Scout wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "MarkA" <some...@somewhere.invalid> wrote in message

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>news:pan.2012.08.04....@somewhere.invalid...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 05:43:28 -0400, Steve wrote:
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 22:20:31 -0400, MarkA <some...@somewhere.invalid>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:30:34 -0400, Steve wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2012 10:16:32 -0400, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.invalid>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:37:56 -0700, Kurt Nicklas wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 37% Consider Romney's Views Extreme, 47% Say Same of Obama's
>

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/ele...

Did snookums stub his toe and get turned down for workmans comp?

Poor baby!

[Steve]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:25:43 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>

Most are, but this discussion was not about injuries. It was about
employers being able to hire whomever they want and to pay them
according to an agreement between the employer and the employee.

You're a typical leftist.. unable to speak about the issue because
you really have no argument.

[Free Lunch]

On Mon, 6 Aug 2012 12:34:07 -0400, "Scout"

My position on health care is that the most rational funding approach is
single payer. The PPACA approach is an improvement designed to keep
insurance companies in the loop at the expense of citizens.

Your views about taxes don't matter if you don't offer evidence.

[RD Sandman]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:b5h0289k4oi14ot3v...@4ax.com:

I agree with that. The problem is paying for it.

The PPACA approach is an improvement designed to keep
> insurance companies in the loop at the expense of citizens.
>
> Your views about taxes don't matter if you don't offer evidence.

Of what?



--

The three most common last words in aviation are: "Did you hear that?",
"What was that noise?" and "Oh, Shit!!!"


Sleep well, tonight.....

RD (The Sandman)

[Lee Curtiss]

What a great defense of sex slavery trade. After all, pimps have right to
exploit young girls. What is your role in the trade, Kurt?

[Scout]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:b5h0289k4oi14ot3v...@4ax.com...

My evidence is as significant as what you've produced.

[Steve]

On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 18:45:04 -0500, Lee Curtiss <clee...@gmail.com>

Wow, now the loser leftist has changed the subject to the sex slavery
trade...

<LOL> Leftists are so easy... Too bad they make such poor
employees...

[Oglethorpe]

"Free Lunch" <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in message

news:b5h0289k4oi14ot3v...@4ax.com...

Which is irrational.

[Gray Guest]

Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in

news:b5h0289k4oi14ot3v...@4ax.com:

My position is you are an antifreedom dumbass.

> Your views about taxes don't matter if you don't offer evidence.

Your views don't matter at all. Because there ain't no such thing as a Free
Lunch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch

... "There's no such thing as a free lunch" or other variants) is a popular
adage communicating the idea that it is impossible to get something for
nothing. ...

Early uses

According to Robert Caro, Fiorello La Guardia, on becoming mayor of New York
in 1934, said "� finita la cuccagna!", meaning "No more free lunch"; in this
context "free lunch" refers to graft and corruption.[1] The earliest known
occurrence of the full phrase, in the form "There ain�t no such thing as free
lunch", appears as the punchline of a joke related in an article in the El
Paso Herald-Post of June 27, 1938, entitled "Economics in Eight Words".[8] In
1945 "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" appeared in the Columbia Law
Review, and "there is no free lunch" appeared in a 1942 article in the
Oelwein Daily Register (in a quote attributed to economist Harley L. Lutz)
and in a 1947 column by economist Merryle S. Rukeyser.[2][9] In 1949 the
phrase appeared in an article by Walter Morrow in the San Francisco News
(published on 1 June) and in Pierre Dos Utt's monograph, "TANSTAAFL: a plan
for a new economic world order",[10] which describes an oligarchic political
system based on his conclusions from "no free lunch" principles.

In 1950, a New York Times columnist ascribed the phrase to economist (and
Army General) Leonard P. Ayres of the Cleveland Trust Company. "It seems that
shortly before the General's death [in 1946]... a group of reporters
approached the general with the request that perhaps he might give them one
of several immutable economic truisms that he gathered from long years of
economic study... 'It is an immutable economic fact,' said the general, 'that
there is no such thing as a free lunch.'"[12]

Meanings

TANSTAAFL demonstrates opportunity cost. Greg Mankiw described the concept
as: "To get one thing that we like, we usually have to give up another thing
that we like. Making decisions requires trading off one goal against
another."[13] The idea that there is no free lunch at the societal level
applies only when all resources are being used completely and appropriately,
i.e., when economic efficiency prevails. If not, a 'free lunch' can be had
through a more efficient utilisation of resources. If one individual or group
gets something at no cost, somebody else ends up paying for it. If there
appears to be no direct cost to any single individual, there is a social
cost. Similarly, someone can benefit for "free" from an externality or from a
public good, but someone has to pay the cost of producing these benefits.

By defintion - you don't exist.

--
Refusenik #1

[Gray Guest]

"Oglethorpe" <anti...@go.com> wrote in
news:XMadnX1ztORR6L3N...@mchsi.com:

It's quite rational. To a thug. If you don't do as the thugocracy says, you
don't get medical care.

--
Refusenik #1