Part of Prenda's Law problem was that Judge Wright had written much about their operations in his Findings of Fact which is rarely overturned by higher courts as opposed to the Findings of Law which can be scrutinized by higher courts. The court's first question to Voelker expressly asked that for the appeal court to rule in his client's favor they would have to find clear error in the Findings of Fact which he characteristically dodged again and again.
Morgan Pietz representing the opposing side did better on answering the Judges' questions. For example in doubling the original fine which may have crossed the line between criminal and civil, Pietz responded that deterrence is an important element of sanctions and doubling the fine was justified. Pietz also argued that a separate criminal proceeding could still be held without voiding the civil result.
Link to Original Source
You would be better off comparing the US (318 million) to all of Western Europe (397.5 million). Only that isn't a fair comparison either as Europe has a several thousand year head start on its development of infrastructure, its road system for example first started by the Roman Empire.
You had a decent argument that many countries that are socialist in nature are smaller than the US individually; however, practically all of Western Europe has socialized medicine which makes your argument somewhat moot. Second, while Europe had a much longer history than the US, you are aware that wars (like 2 World Wars) have required Europe to rebuild their infrastructure.
Please explain how you can be so fucking obtuse as to wave away the example of Libya (which she enthusiastically supported) and her vote in favor of the Iraq War AUMF.
So what you are saying is that after multiple but vague accusations when asked for clear and specific charges you won't give them. I'm not taking about Libya for the moment; however, you again said she was responsible for Iraq but provide no other reason than she voted for it.. You will not address the fact that as a Senator she had no say in what the Bush administration decided to do diplomatically or militarily when they were in charge for the early years. Being that ISIS is a terror organization, you are putting all counter-terrorism blame on her even though counter-terrorism is more the responsibility of the CIA and NSA. Being a US Senator and Secretary of State, she also bears responsibility of reversing almost 1400 years of civil strife between Sunni and Shia. In that she has as much responsibility as Kerry who also voted for the Iraq War AUMF and is now Secretary of State. Are you willing to blame Kerry as much? If not, is your hatred for her that deep?
Now let's talk Libya. What did she do specifically (and not the call of the administration)? If you are blaming her for everything that means you are to blame for everything your bosses does. Everything your father does. Everything your coach does. Again is your hatred so deep for a person that you can't see reason.
I for one am willing to blame Collin Powell for 9/11, if you're willing to acknowledge that Hillary Clinton had an abysmal record as Secretary of State, one that shows she would be a terrible choice for President.
So you are willing to blame the wrong person if it means you can hate on the person you dislike. Isn't that like saying you would support sending an innocent person to prison as long as a hated and possibly guilty person goes to jail? Where does your hate end?
No, the destruction of nation-states (Libya, Syria, and Iraq) that created the conditions for ISIS to flourish are Clinton's responsibility. She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.
Please explain how civil strife in nation-states like Syria where there is little American much like the Secretary of State's influence are Hillary Clinton's fault. Especially when Iraq's civil strife is caused by religious differences between Sunnis and Shia that have been brewing for the last 1400 years. You seem to not understand history.
She was a policy-maker, not the policy-maker, but a policy-maker nonetheless who was in the room when these decisions were made.
So the policy of the Obama administration are all on her? Really so you are at fault for what your boss or father decides?
People criticized Romney because he ran on his business record, and that record included the elimination of many American job. In fairness to Romney, though, his job at Bain was to save companies, not jobs, and in this he was successful.
I have to disagree on this point. His job at Bain was to make money. If that meant saving a company made more money, that's what he did. If more money was made chopping it up to sell and shipping the jobs to China, that's what he did. Romney is a pure capitalist.