Fred Barnes, Jay Cost, Peggy Noonan, Larry Kudlow, Michael Barone, Michael Graham, Karl Rove and most especially Dick Morris were wrong

Why did all these conservative pundits predict that Mitt Romney would win?  And why did Dick Morris say it would be a landslide?

1.  They are conservative, and emotion got in the way of logic.

2.  They want to remain popular with their readers/viewers, and tell them what they desperately want to hear.

3.  The are doing a “Nouriel Roubini,” especially in the case of Dick Morris.  If he had been right he would have been hailed as a genius.  You don’t get credit for predicting the obvious.  Roubini’s problem was that he didn’t quit while he was ahead.  He told people not to buy stocks in the spring of 2009 (I kid you not.)  Then again in 2010.  Last year he said America was headed to a double dip recession.  By now he’s convinced almost everyone that his 2008 prediction was just luck.  The problem with becoming lauded as a great forecaster is that people keep asking for more, they want one prediction after another.  And no human is capable of doing that.  Not even Nouriel Roubini, and certainly not the individuals in the headline of this post.

In fairness to the other side of the EMH debate, even the Intrade market didn’t do well tonight.  It was obvious pretty early on that Obama was winning.  I kept going to Intrade for confirmation, and it seemed stuck at 70-30.  I actually thought the trading site was down, and then more recently the Romney contract collapsed to 1 dollar.

Looks like a big loss for the GOP, which is well-deserved.  Also a loss for Romney, who is far better than the party he represented.  Too bad America doesn’t have a political party where he could be himself.

William Saletan has a great article about some footage of Romney when he didn’t know he was on camera.  Will’s right that Romney looks like a far better man when he can be himself, than when he has to be a phony.  The problem is that if Romney had been himself he would not have had even a prayer of winning the Republican nomination.  Remember Jim Huntsman?  You don’t?  That the problem with the Republican party, Jim Huntsman is an honest Mitt Romney, and he didn’t have a prayer.

Update:  Apparently even I don’t remember Huntsman’s first name–it was Jon.

PS.  It’s 9:45 and the networks haven’t called the race yet, so if I look like a fool tomorrow morning all you GOP readers get to mercilessly tease me.


Tags:

 
 
 

60 Responses to “Fred Barnes, Jay Cost, Peggy Noonan, Larry Kudlow, Michael Barone, Michael Graham, Karl Rove and most especially Dick Morris were wrong”

  1. Gravatar of Kevin Donoghue Kevin Donoghue
    6. November 2012 at 18:59

    There are many versions of the EMH. Nobody should subscribe to a version so strong that it claims efficiency for Intrade. Intrade is for people who would happily bet on flies walking up a wall. It’s just for fun mostly, no more rational than roulette.

  2. Gravatar of Mikael Mikael
    6. November 2012 at 19:12

    Scott, I think your blind trust in the “wisdom of the crowd” is amusing. Especially as I’m pretty sure you can’t legally bet on Intrade as an American…

  3. Gravatar of jh jh
    6. November 2012 at 19:14

    Jon Huntsman

  4. Gravatar of Neal Neal
    6. November 2012 at 19:16

    JON Huntsman.

  5. Gravatar of Niklas Blanchard Niklas Blanchard
    6. November 2012 at 19:17

    InTrade is a pretty thin market. The only real thing WRT the EMH you can say (either waY) is that the deeper the market, the more it approximates an ideal efficient market…

    …but that’s not interesting at all.

  6. Gravatar of Cameron Cameron
    6. November 2012 at 19:20

    Intrade has been nearly dead on. Not sure why people think otherwise.

  7. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    6. November 2012 at 19:26

    As a Market Monetarist zealot, my complaint was that monetary policy—vital to the prosperity of the USA economy—was barely discussed in this election cycle (or ever much, for that matter).

    So, if you want a good monetary policy, who do you vote for?

    This sentiments mirrors Sumner’s sentiment about a European voter wanting a better monetary policy. Who do they vote for? If they cannot vote for a better monetary policy, then is Europe a democracy?

    Don Regan, Ronald Reagan’s Treasury Secy, called for placing the Fed into the Treasury Department. Upon reflection, I think that is a good idea.

    This would encourage more debate and discussion about monetary policy in the national elections.

    And I think the public has a right to vote on what kind of monetary policy they want. We vote on national defense, we vote on the environment—issues of horrific import.

    But economists tout the idea that monetary policy is somehow sacred, and so only experts (under divine inspiration, no doubt) can determine monetary policy.

    So here I am, wanting to vote on monetary policy. Except I can’t. I can’t vote on the one policy I think would actually improve economic outcomes in the next 10 years.

  8. Gravatar of Kevin H Kevin H
    6. November 2012 at 19:29

    Personally, I don’t remember “Jim” Huntsman because there was no such person.

  9. Gravatar of ChargerCarl ChargerCarl
    6. November 2012 at 19:42

    “Too bad America doesn’t have a political party where he could be himself.”

    I don’t see why Romney couldn’t make it in the dems.

  10. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    6. November 2012 at 19:51

    I tried to vote for Scott Brown tonight, but the polls had a line 2-3 hours long and I had other engagements, so I was unable to cast a ballot. This told me two things:

    1) the voting process is broken
    2) the Democrats would win big

  11. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    6. November 2012 at 19:56

    It makes you wonder, doesn’t it: if the Republicans had ran Jon Huntsman (or if Mitch Daniels had stepped up) then would Obama have had any chance? Jon Huntsman had almost none of the weaknesses of Romney and almost every strength except looking like every 1980s teen movie villain*. It’s like the 1980s in Britain, where the Labour party decided to commit political suicide and run on a radical socialist platform, losing elections by landslides despite double-digit unemployment.

    * Seriously, check out Revenge of the Nerds, Animal House or Hot Dog… The Movie. Why were so many villains in teen films during that period played by square-jawed Ivy League elites?

  12. Gravatar of Shane Shane
    6. November 2012 at 20:02

    Although partially in Intrade’s defense, the Obama re-elect very quickly shot up to 90% before there were any major calls. Intraders were betting more heavily on systematic poll bias, which wasn’t plausible after the first trickle of news. I bet if you averaged all the betting markets, though, you’d come up with a more reasonable figure. Outliers don’t disprove EMH, no?

  13. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    6. November 2012 at 20:03

    Everyone, The only suspense now is the popular vote. It could go either way. The polls were pretty accurate, as far as I can tell. Is it possible that Hurricane Sandy cost Romney the election? I doubt it. But the average of national polls swung about 1.5% in Obama’s direction after the hurricane. I think Romney would have fallen a bit short if the election were held two weeks ago, but it would have been extremely close.

    Steve, The lines really are a disgrace. As far as I can tell the problem doesn’t (intentionally) favor any particular party. Oddly the towns that don’t have enough voting booths are just shooting themselves in the foot, as a GOP town with lines will hurt the GOP and a Dem town will hurt the Dems.

    Bejamin, I see monetary policy as a technical issue, not a political issue. We rely on the experts to do the right thing, and they let us down (after doing well for 25 years.)

    Neal, See people don’t even remember his first name! Thanks, I’ll correct it.

  14. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    6. November 2012 at 20:15

    “As far as I can tell the problem doesn’t (intentionally) favor any particular party”

    I was voting in Tent City, so the dems were hurting themselves (unless they were more willing to stand in line than us busy independent/repubs). The length of the lines did show a level of passion among democrats.

  15. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    6. November 2012 at 20:34

    I think Obama wins the popular vote once California comes in. Right now ppl are counting CA in Obama’s electoral total but not in his popular total.

    Jon Huntsman was always my favorite candidate:
    1) he knows the challenges of running a real multinational business (huntsman chem), unlike romney and his private equity. Actually Huntsman (the co, not Jon) won a bitter lawsuit against a private equity shop because the pe guys reneged on a deal.
    2) I believe Jon speaks fluent Mandarin
    3) he was capable of working across the aisle.

  16. Gravatar of Richard W Richard W
    6. November 2012 at 20:38

    The most efficient market in the world is Betfair. Studies analysing millions of transactions in even fast moving 100% overround markets have concluded that the implied predictions from the prices are efficient. At no time in the last 12 months has Obama been any worse than 60% certain to win. For the last few weeks he was mid 70% certain to win at the same time as all the clever talking heads were claiming things were too tight to call or on a knife-edge etc. Over 80% certain to win today before most American had even voted and still the clever people were claiming things were 50/50. In an ignominious defeat for the ‘ highly uncertain election ‘talking heads the market was saying an Obama victory was 99% certain before any news network was prepared to call the election.

    As you have suggested Prof. Sumner the talking heads do not pay a price for poor predictions. However, there can be considerable undeserved upside to making contrarian predictions that just happen to end up being lucky. Somehow in this election the media class managed to convince themselves that things were more uncertain than the reality. Guess who was right the people who pay a cost or those who do not?

  17. Gravatar of StatsGuy StatsGuy
    6. November 2012 at 20:48

    I signed on for Huntsman early. I also notched my vote for Wesley Clark in 2008. Very similar candidates, in many ways, and both doomed.

    Here’s a note – fivethirtyeight and several other meta-analysis sites predicted this quite accurately. I would also add that it’s highly likely that much of the accuracy of Betfair and other markets was derived from participants paying attention to these poll aggregation sites. It’s not the first time that models outpredict markets.

  18. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    6. November 2012 at 21:13

    StatsGuy,

    Presumably, the reason why people with military, ambassadorial or similar non-partisan experience don’t get elected as president is because it’s so disastrous when it happens. Just look at Eisenhower… Er, George Washington… Er, John Adams… Er, well, Ulysses S. Grant was pretty poor, wasn’t he?

  19. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    6. November 2012 at 21:27

    Maybe Fall River, Attleboro and Wrentham should secede from MA and join RI. Then Scott Brown could be the next Lincoln Chafee.

    It’s a shame that the good senators in vulnerable seats get torpedoed by the nutcases in safe seats.

    CNN made a good point about 5 repub senate seats getting teabaggered back to the dems. Repubs are more-dourk-ing themselves.

  20. Gravatar of WordPress Hosted WordPress Hosted
    6. November 2012 at 21:28

    In-Trade is a very thin market. Only real thing WRT the EMH you can say (either waY) is that the deeper the market, the more it approximates an ideal market.

  21. Gravatar of Patrick R. Sullivan Patrick R. Sullivan
    6. November 2012 at 21:39

    That was then;

    http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-248645.html

    ———–quote———-
    Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton began a victory tour of upstate New York Friday by calling for elimination of the Electoral College.

    At an airport news conference, the first lady said she would support legislation seeking a constitutional amendment providing for the direct election of the president.

    At the moment, Americans are waiting to see who wins Florida’s 25 electoral votes and thus becomes the next president. Vice President Al Gore leads Republican George W. Bush in the popular vote nationwide.

    “We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago,” Clinton said. “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

    The first lady also said that because of the closeness of this year’s presidential election, “I hope no one is ever in doubt again about whether their vote counts.”
    ————endquote———-

  22. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    6. November 2012 at 22:33

    Scott Sumner: Finally we disagree about something!

  23. Gravatar of Mike Sax Mike Sax
    6. November 2012 at 22:49

    Nope Scott, you don’t look silly on this one. The many names of your title certainly do.

    The question is will the networks carry Nate Silver’s victory speech?

    Probably not-it frustrates the coin flip punditry so much to point out that all their big prognostications are worth no more than coin flips.

    The David Brookes, the Joe Scarboroughs, how it irks them that Nate and Same Wang, et. al have called out their game.

    If it weren’t for Nate we would have been talking about Romney’s phantom “momentum” until Hurricane Sunday.

  24. Gravatar of Nick Rowe Nick Rowe
    7. November 2012 at 03:15

    I wonder why Intrade is a thin market? Is Intrade on the elections thinner than, say, betting on football games? You would think there would be more people wanting to insure against the wrong political team winning than the wrong football team winning.

  25. Gravatar of Robert Robert
    7. November 2012 at 03:41

    Personally, I don’t read intrade’s 70-30 to mean Obama should win with 70%. More that there is a 70% chance of him winning… If you looked at the intrade’s delegate count it was at 303 to 235 and it did it by allowing trades on each states’ election… I’d say that’s pretty damn good…

  26. Gravatar of Tom Hannaford Tom Hannaford
    7. November 2012 at 05:34

    Jon Huntsman didn’t stand a chance because despite actually having a governing record to the right of Romney, he did nothing in public to separate himself from the “other Mormon” image. As for Mitt, I hope this serves as an example of what Edward Bernays and Ivy Lee advocated for many moons ago: The Truth is always the best PR tool. Mitt would have still won the primaries had he not tried pandering to what is now roughly 29% of the electorate, and it would have put him in a much better place once the general election season started. Instead, we have a repeat of 2004, just with the parties switched around…hooray.

  27. Gravatar of Matt Matt
    7. November 2012 at 05:42

    Someone had a bid of over 10000 on intrade at the 70% level. To put that in perspective the usual top of book size is in the 10s. It would take over a million dollars to break through that 10k bid. I saw it see there for several days with people chipping away at it in small chunks until it finally disappeared and the market quickly corrected to match up with other prediction markets.

    Someone lost a lot of money making it look like Romney was no worse than a 30% chance to win.

  28. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    7. November 2012 at 06:32

    Nick, I wonder to, I guess people are right that Betfair is better—I’ll follow that in the future.

    I won my ($60) bet on Obama, can’t wait to get that $100 check in the mail.

    Steve, We think alike.

  29. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    7. November 2012 at 06:53

    Oh God. I want that Romney to run for President next time.

    At times, he almost sounded like a much, much smarter (and cleaner) Charlie Sheen. (It was the intensity, I think – funny how he sounds more like an actor when he becomes more honest.)

  30. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    7. November 2012 at 07:43

    Obamacare won. I’m sad. (Yichuan Wang is happy, though: http://synthenomics.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/healthcare-and-cars-are-not-isomorphic.html and also https://twitter.com/yichuanw/status/266199819679326209 . Who said young people are all libertarians? (Evan Soltas is a Republican I think.))

  31. Gravatar of Doug M Doug M
    7. November 2012 at 11:34

    Regarding Roubini, He is a stopped clock. If you always call for a recession, eventually, you will be right. Still it is a zero signal to noise ratio. You don’t get the name Doctor Doom for nothing. Stephen Roach — same thing.

    They hyper-partisans — once again, if you never change your tune and lead the chear for your own team –zero signal lots of noise. If Rove were to ever say that the Democrats might win this one, then he may have some value as a prognosticator.

    Intrade — no liquidity.

  32. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    7. November 2012 at 14:16

    The beginning of the loss of my bet:

    http://www.morganwarstler.com/

  33. Gravatar of johnleemk johnleemk
    7. November 2012 at 15:11

    W. Peden: very good observation on 1980s Britain. I think the 1980s Labour Party drove itself crazy into thinking that since Thatcher was so obviously evil, the Tories would be farther from the median voter than their crazy candidates. Seems to me that that is exactly what the GOP was thinking with its pandering to the Tea Party.

  34. Gravatar of Suvy Suvy
    8. November 2012 at 11:13

    To be fair, Roubini is correct on both stocks and on a double dip; he was just off on the timing. You’re starting to see the correction in the stock market occur right now with the increase in volatility. We probably will be headed for a double dip. Debt levels in this country are still excessively high and that makes us fragile to any sort of a shock(from Europe, or some sort of a supply side shock, etc); it’s only a matter of time since we get some sort of a shock(the only question is when).

    The timing of these things is impossible to predict, but the corrections have to (and will) occur eventually. They may take 2-5 or maybe even 10 years, but the corrections will occur.

  35. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    8. November 2012 at 17:44

    It looks like it was not just the Right wing public pollsters that ignored reality.

    Mitt and his own private pollsters believed the same things the right wing talking heads believed.

    It’s just one more example of the right’s capacity to ignore science when it conflicts with what they want, or need to believe.

    Mitt Romney ‘Shellshocked’ After Lost Election, Adviser Says

    (…) the campaign was unprepared for this in part because it had ignored polling that showed the races favoring Obama. Instead, it turned to its own internal “unskewed” polls, which it believed more accurately reflected the situation on the ground. They didn’t.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/mitt-romney-lost-election_n_2095013.html

    “unskewing” in this case meant ignoring undeniable changes in basic demographics… changes that were in the census for all to see… changes that WERE pointed out to them, but ignored.

    The reason the repubs missed so badly with their polls was because they willfully ignored reality… and that willful ignorance of reality went all the way to the top.

  36. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    8. November 2012 at 18:27

    Bill Ellis:

    It’s just one more example of the right’s capacity to ignore science when it conflicts with what they want, or need to believe.

    Hahaha, as if those in the left also don’t ignore science when it conflicts with what they want, or need to believe.

    One more partisan droid believing himself to be objective. Hilarious.

  37. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    8. November 2012 at 21:44

    Any fair comparison of right wing vs left wing science denial leaves the right in a worse light. Much worse.
    What on the left compares to the right’s denial of the science surrounding evolution, creation, depletion of resources, degradation of the environment and climate change ? ( Just to hit on a few of the big ones. )

    That would be an interesting list.

  38. Gravatar of Negation of Ideology Negation of Ideology
    9. November 2012 at 02:33

    Benjamin Cole nails it:

    “So here I am, wanting to vote on monetary policy. Except I can’t. I can’t vote on the one policy I think would actually improve economic outcomes in the next 10 years.”

    My thoughts exactly. And there is not even a minor party supporting it as far as I know. The Libertarian and Constitution parties are for returning to the socialized gold monetary policy of the early 30′s. So you have to choose between the two least bad candidates on monetary policy, Obama and Romney.

    Now that the election is over, hopefully Obama will embrace it. Or maybe gridlock will cause the fiscal cliff to come, and Bernanke will turn to NGDPLT as an emergency measure to save the economy.

  39. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:30

    Bill Ellis, the left generally denies the economic science surrounding all those things. Including in some ways the links between economics and evolution. Marxists have always laughed at people who contradicted them with appeals to human nature – in flat denial of Darwinian science, which says that of course there is such a thing.

  40. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:32

    Does Ben Cole actually think that the voters would make a wise decision on monetary policy? Really?

  41. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:33

    Neither Romney nor Obama’s campaign platforms were very flattering to the economic “wisdom of the crowds”. And that’s because voters have no incentive to be wise.

  42. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:34

    I’m very pleased to see that Morgan is still taking his bet very seriously, despite the fact that no one else ever did…

  43. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:36

    Bill Ellis, the more fundamental criticism is that the probability of yourself being wrong about X usually has little to do with the probability of your opponents being wrong about Y… that’s irrationality, my friend.

  44. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 03:44

    Just read Morgan’s blog. Someone should do another bet with him. After US adopts NGDPLT, progressives will continue to thrash conservatives in elections.

  45. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 06:12

    Robert Wiblin has comments on Intrade at Overcoming Bias: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/11/was-intrade-being-manipulated-over-the-last-month.html

  46. Gravatar of Travis Travis
    9. November 2012 at 06:12

    Right. I believe Romney could have easily won by taking credit for essentially inventing Obamacare, and his incredible history of being a shrewd businessman that could turn around almost any failing business. He started Bain Capital with 37 mil. and turned it into 1.5 bil. before he was finished. He knew more than anyone why Romneycare was important in today’s world of where a worker can’t depend on his company to provide employment/benefits for life.

    But the Republican platform had to be anti obamacare, and they picked an anti obama strategy instead of a strategy that highlighted all of Romney’s strengths. Huge missed opportunity, considering Obama’s approval ratings.

    For those that claim the repub. party is dead, though, just wait. Obama actually will have to fix something in the next four years. No amount of popularity will overcome failing policies, and there could be a huge snap back to conservatism if the next four years are regarded as a failure.

  47. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    9. November 2012 at 07:01

    Saturos:

    I think you should take the official title over from me for longest and largest quantity of posts champion on this blog.

    Bill Ellis

    Any fair comparison of right wing vs left wing science denial leaves the right in a worse light. Much worse.
    What on the left compares to the right’s denial of the science surrounding evolution, creation, depletion of resources, degradation of the environment and climate change ? ( Just to hit on a few of the big ones. )

    I was actually referring to economic science, which most on the left do deny when it conflicts with what they want, or need to believe.

    But to address your list, the left definitely denies the science of climate change, depletion of resources, and degradation of the environment, when it conflicts with what they want (abolition of modern capitalism, socialism, asceticism). That’s where the logic of their philosophy, when consistently applied, takes them.

  48. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 07:47

    Ouch.

  49. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    9. November 2012 at 07:57

    johnleemk,

    I think that diagnosis is correct. The assumption seemed to be that we’d vote for anything, provided that it didn’t have a blue rosette. What the Labour party failed to anticipate was that (a) the majority of people agreed with a very large number of Thatcher’s key policies on things like council house privatisation, most other privatisations, the independent nuclear deterrant, shifting from direct to indirect taxation, more law & order, staying in the Common Market, relatively tight monetary policies and most of all trade union reform; and (b) that the moderate wing of the Labour party would get fed up and form the Social Democratic party.

    The pivotal moment was 1983, when Labour were hammered from the moderate left by the SDP/Liberal Alliance and from the right by the Conservatives. Here are the manifestos- the Labour manifesto is regarded as the “Longest Suicide Note in History” -

    http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/con83.htm

    http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/all83.htm

    http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/man/lab83.htm

  50. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    9. November 2012 at 08:52

    MF and Saturos…

    So according to you… Because Liberals deny what true believer Libertarians take as gospel they deny science to the same degree as Conservatives.

    So to your minds… your Philosophy has the same scientific standing as Paleontology, Archeology, Climatology, Statistics, Biology and Physics.

    Liberals denying your beliefs about Economics is the same as Conservatives denying Demographics, Evolution, the age of the world, and global warming….

    Seriously funny.

    Talk about partisan droids believing themselves to be objective.

  51. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    9. November 2012 at 09:18

    Bill Ellis, try looking up Simon-Ehrlich…

  52. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    9. November 2012 at 15:57

    Saturos… So you are saying you doubt the basic scarcity of resources because one man was wrong about it once ?

    I’ll give you more than this guy… Environmentalists have been wrong about resource depletion over and over. The most hyperbolic environmentalist pull the movement around like a bull with a ring in its nose.

    But the environmentalist’ basic argument is right. Resources ARE finite. And we are running out. It is only the rate that is in dispute.

    Our supply of Oil will cease to be able to fuel the world’s continued economic growth if we do not find alternatives.

    On the other hand… Despite what the right believes…We do have to address resource depletion. Creationism will never be true. The world was 5000 years old eons ago. Co2 is a green house gas. And it was absolutely un-reasonable for the Romney folks to be as confident as they were.

    The best you can do is offer a false equivalency ?

  53. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    9. November 2012 at 16:14

    Suvy, You said;

    “To be fair, Roubini is correct on both stocks and on a double dip; he was just off on the timing. You’re starting to see the correction in the stock market occur right now with the increase in volatility.”

    Please go away and never come back to this blog.

    Bill, Both the left and the right are completely clueless on all sorts of scientific questions. Surely less than 5% of the public has a rational, scientific view of reality. Maybe less than 2%.

  54. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    9. November 2012 at 17:15

    Bill Ellis:

    So according to you… Because Liberals deny what true believer Libertarians take as gospel they deny science to the same degree as Conservatives.

    So according to you… because Conservatives deny what true believer Liberals take as gospel they deny science to the same degree as Conservatives.

    Liberals denying your beliefs about Economics is the same as Conservatives denying Demographics, Evolution, the age of the world, and global warming….

    Conservatives denying your beliefs about Economics is the same as Liberals denying Demographics, Evolution, the age of the world, and global warming.

    Seriously funny.

    Talk about partisan droids believing themselves to be objective.

    Hey this game is fun. Let’s play again!

  55. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    9. November 2012 at 17:19

    Bill Ellis:

    But the environmentalist’ basic argument is right. Resources ARE finite. And we are running out. It is only the rate that is in dispute.

    This is what you true believer Liberals fallaciously believe because you don’t understand the creative nature of human reason. Resources are not finite for any practical intents. 200 years ago crude oil was nothing but a nuisance for coal miners. Now it powers the world.

    Who knows what new energy source will be found. Water, sand, rock, etc. You are assuming technology is constant. Humans have barely scratched the surface of the Earth, and even that pisses you people off. Humans have the intellectual capacity to colonize the stars. Way, waaaaaay before the very last resource on Earth is used up and zero resources are left, humans will have almost certainly colonized other planets.

    Resources are only finite to the dimwitted unevolving Liberal mind.

  56. Gravatar of Bill Ellis Bill Ellis
    10. November 2012 at 17:58

    MF…

    Slow down when you read. Maybe you won’t keep embarrassing yourself.

    I said… “Our supply of Oil will cease to be able to fuel the world’s continued economic growth if we do not find alternatives.

    Now don’t you feel stupid ? Here is a hint. It is OK to move your lips along with the words when you read. It Can help people who struggle with comprehension.

  57. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    10. November 2012 at 20:56

    Bill Ellis, you need to familiarize yourself with the economic definition of a “resource”… it’s not what you think it is.

    Scott, yes. I mean there’s plenty of evidence of that right here: http://www.youtube.com/course?list=EC772556F1EFC4D01C

  58. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    10. November 2012 at 20:58

    I mean come on, the left gets science? GMOs QED.

  59. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    10. November 2012 at 20:59

    Just walk into any “alternative” health store and…

  60. Gravatar of Major_Freedom Major_Freedom
    18. November 2012 at 00:40

    Bill Ellis:

    Slow down when you read. Maybe you won’t keep embarrassing yourself.

    Aww, you must be mad that I pointed out your fallacies that you don’t understand.

    I said… “Our supply of Oil will cease to be able to fuel the world’s continued economic growth if we do not find alternatives.

    You said resources are finite. That’s what I responded to.

    Now don’t you feel stupid ?

    Not in the slightest. I only feel more secure in my convictions, considering the quality of your responses.

    Here is a hint. It is OK to move your lips along with the words when you read. It Can help people who struggle with comprehension.

    You don’t understand the fact that humans CREATE resources, and that we are not limited in any practical respects to the resources in the Earth. Resources exist in the entire universe. To say that resources are limited is to deny the millions, billions, if not trillions of years of potential resource extraction that humans can engage in throughout the solar system and the universe.

    Don’t you feel ignorant now?

Leave a Reply