Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
One of our electric power generating plants burns coal. All the others burn natural gas. The solar generating stations don't burn any fuel.Obama did, moron. Obama's EPA has made coal power plants virtually illegal. Don't feed us that shit about the price of oil, which is almost never used to produce electric power, and the price of natural gas.The federal government never said it was going to shut down coal plants and replace them with solar and wind generated plants. That is a bullshit fantasy invented by ODS sufferers.If you're a business that uses large amounts of electricity and the Federal Government is going to close down coal fired plants and replace them with more expensive solar or wind generated plants...then any intelligent banker is going to want to know if your business model can absorb that additional cost.
And as it turns out, energy costs have plummeted, not risen. The only reason the coal industry is suffering is because oil and natural gas are cheaper options.
Doesn't matter who i think is doing it, everyone knows Breitbart.com isn'tlol. don't kid yourself. there is a reason steve bannon is on the trump payroll and it's not because he was doing fair and unbiased reportingNo they wouldn't, you witless douche bag.so the guy writes for breitbart. trump could tell us he was going to convert the u.s. to a complete barter system and pay u.s. debts in sea shells and breitbart authors would sing his praises.
You're a moron. Who do you think is doing "fair and balanced reporting," Rachel Maddow?
what part of the survey would you call propaganda?The left love their propaganda pieces.
i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.what part of the survey would you call propaganda?The left love their propaganda pieces.
The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.
Doesn't matter who i think is doing it, everyone knows Breitbart.com isn'tlol. don't kid yourself. there is a reason steve bannon is on the trump payroll and it's not because he was doing fair and unbiased reportingNo they wouldn't, you witless douche bag.so the guy writes for breitbart. trump could tell us he was going to convert the u.s. to a complete barter system and pay u.s. debts in sea shells and breitbart authors would sing his praises.Hmmmm . . . so?
You're a moron. Who do you think is doing "fair and balanced reporting," Rachel Maddow?
Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.what part of the survey would you call propaganda?The left love their propaganda pieces.
The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.
do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?
you understand that i don't expect fair reporting from breitbart, which is why when you decided to use their economist as a source for saying good things about trump's economic plans i found it akin to asking trump if he thought his economic plan was goodDoesn't matter who i think is doing it, everyone knows Breitbart.com isn'tlol. don't kid yourself. there is a reason steve bannon is on the trump payroll and it's not because he was doing fair and unbiased reportingNo they wouldn't, you witless douche bag.so the guy writes for breitbart. trump could tell us he was going to convert the u.s. to a complete barter system and pay u.s. debts in sea shells and breitbart authors would sing his praises.
You're a moron. Who do you think is doing "fair and balanced reporting," Rachel Maddow?
There are no "fair and balanced" journalists, so why do you expect Breitbart to be "fair and balanced?" Oh yeah, you don't have an legitimate arguments to you engage in ad hominems.
so you believe you know better than hundreds of economists.Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.what part of the survey would you call propaganda?The left love their propaganda pieces.
The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.
do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?
so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!
Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?
look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.
but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.
they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.
now does that in any way give you pause?
you act is if it were an either/or proposition...so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!
Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?
look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.
but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.
they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.
now does that in any way give you pause?
That also depends on their perception of HOW to create a strong economy, whether it's through government pumping all their money believing they can control its destiny... or finding ways to encourage small business to grow without having big government pumping millions of dollars to take on the roll of creating jobs.
Since you and reality have never met , that explains a lot.Unless it agrees with my understanding of reality, I generally assume a claim is bullshit until proven otherwise.i see. it's propaganda because the survey results don't match what you think they should be.what part of the survey would you call propaganda?The left love their propaganda pieces.
The part where the establishment pretends that a money launderer like Hillary is better than an efficient proven businessman like Trump.
do you think maybe it could be you with the problem and not the educated, knowledgable, professional economists?
Where in the world did you get that idea? "Backing up a power plant?"One of our electric power generating plants burns coal. All the others burn natural gas. The solar generating stations don't burn any fuel.
Except they all have to be 100% backed up by fossil fuel power generation. So instead of building one power plant, you have to build two, the so-called "green energy plant" and the fossil fuel backup plant.
That's a big money saver!
Conservatives tend to think in black and white terms and not very deeply about anything.you act is if it were an either/or proposition...so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!
Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?
look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.
but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.
they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.
now does that in any way give you pause?
That also depends on their perception of HOW to create a strong economy, whether it's through government pumping all their money believing they can control its destiny... or finding ways to encourage small business to grow without having big government pumping millions of dollars to take on the roll of creating jobs.
do you believe you know something those economists don't?
He makes shit up.Where in the world did you get that idea? "Backing up a power plant?"One of our electric power generating plants burns coal. All the others burn natural gas. The solar generating stations don't burn any fuel.
Except they all have to be 100% backed up by fossil fuel power generation. So instead of building one power plant, you have to build two, the so-called "green energy plant" and the fossil fuel backup plant.
That's a big money saver!
No, he didn't. That's a masturbation fantasy invented by your propaganda outlets.Obama did, moron.The federal government never said it was going to shut down coal plants and replace them with solar and wind generated plants. That is a bullshit fantasy invented by ODS sufferers.If you're a business that uses large amounts of electricity and the Federal Government is going to close down coal fired plants and replace them with more expensive solar or wind generated plants...then any intelligent banker is going to want to know if your business model can absorb that additional cost.
And as it turns out, energy costs have plummeted, not risen. The only reason the coal industry is suffering is because oil and natural gas are cheaper options.
so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!
Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?
look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.
but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.
they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.
now does that in any way give you pause?
so it's your opinion, based on no facts, that the economists questioned have a'liberal perspective' and that there is no way they could honestly just believe based on their experience and expertise that clinton will be better than trump for the economy?so obviously the entire study of economics is flawed.yeah! two people weren't 100% right one time and that means all economists are really just tarot card readers making it up as they go along!I'm always SO impressed by economists...take Larry Summers and Christina Romer! Two venerated Ivy League economists. One taught at Harvard...the other at Berkeley. Both considered "authorities" on economics. So what happened when they left their ivy covered academic towers and ventured out into the real world to help The Chosen One's liberal revolution? I'll tell you what happened...both of them discovered that what seemed so easy to accomplish in the classroom...didn't work at all when they were given control of the economy back in 2009. The Obama Stimulus failed to create jobs in such an EPIC fashion that both Summers and Romer jumped ship and RAN back to their tenured positions at Harvard and Berkeley! So spare me the spin, Kiddies...I'm not impressed!
Not 100% right? Dude, they weren't even close to being right! Or have you forgotten Romer's promise that given the Stimulus that unemployment wouldn't go above 8%?
look, they aren't perfect, and some will make the wrong prediction.
but this is their area of study. they aren't just making it up, they are looking at the available data and using their knowledge to predict which candidate will be best for the economy - and more than half of them say that candidate is clinton.
they may not be right. maybe it's gary johnson. but what you cannot argue with is that the people that know the most about the economy largely believe that donald trump will not be good for it.
now does that in any way give you pause?
What I cannot argue with is that economists with a liberal perspective don't want to see a Republican in the White House and approach any and all economic debates with their minds already made up. If you desire the status quo and think Big Government is the solution to our country's problems then you view Donald Trump as the "Anti-Christ"! Does that mean he is? No...it simply means he's not what THEY want!
Speaking of the Anti-Christ:What I cannot argue with is that economists with a liberal perspective don't want to see a Republican in the White House and approach any and all economic debates with their minds already made up. If you desire the status quo and think Big Government is the solution to our country's problems then you view Donald Trump as the "Anti-Christ"! Does that mean he is? No...it simply means he's not what THEY want!
