What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[unregistered]

 

[Dribble]

Have you seen the costs associated with making fuel out of algae?

Like all his other pipe-dreams, if it were economically feasible, we would be doing it.

Now, how about answering the question?

Actually, I have. The costs you see are the ones associated with simplistic modes of algae multiplication. Other methods are available that make it worthy of research. Primary cost with those models are associated with the evaporation phase (concentration of the lipids). The real issue however, which demonstates your lack of knowledge, isn't the cost...but the cost associated per unit energy. Biofuels tend to burn cooler, meaning you may need more. Now if you look at the amount of energy an acre can produce...there is no other biofuel even close to algae.

 

[RobDownSouth]

My my, Government Motors is going to lay off 1300 Volt workers...

"Better America should fail than the neggar president succeed!"

 

[garbage can]

My my, Government Motors is going to lay off 1300 Volt workers...

Well, we know that unemployment helps the economy.

 

[koalabear]

LittleBear hasn't learned anything from posting mid-day DJI numbers before. I don't think it's capable.

It's a decidedly "Conservative" condition.

MORBIDLY OBESE TROLL SLOBBER AISLE 1!

 

[TheOlderGuy]

This is one of the most pathetic deflection attempts ever attempted on the GB.

Congrats.

We have "miles" to go before we sleep

 

[mercury14]

My my, Government Motors is going to lay off 1300 Volt workers...

GM to Temporarily Lay Off 1300

General Motors (GM: 26.45, -0.02, -0.08%) will temporarily lay off 1,300 workers for five weeks at one of its Detroit plants.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/industries/2012/03/02/gm-to-temporarily-lay-off-1300/#ixzz1o07I6MHw

Way to edit the news to fit your argument. Sometimes Fox News just isn't spinny enough so ya gotta take matters into your own hands to come up with a sweet twin-layer spin job...

How many permanent GM layoffs would have happened without Obama?

 

[unregistered]

 

[RobDownSouth]

So Colonel numb nuts, how is my post incorrect?

<vetteman mode>
Hey Look! President Obama's approval rating is up to 79%
</vetteman mode>

*among liberals

 

[Sean Renaud]

So Colonel numb nuts, how is my post incorrect?

It's not incorrect. It is however intentionally misleading. You can see the difference between what the article says and what you said right?

 

[cjh]

So Colonel numb nuts, how is my post incorrect?

it omits a material fact.

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

 

[Sean]

it omits a material fact.



http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

Kinda like when you don't tell your car insurance firm you have eighteen convictions for drink driving.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

You're being willfully deceitful. Lying by omission is lying.

 

[richard_daily]

Is there not going to be a layoff counselor? Are you going to maintain a layoff isn't going to occur?

^^^^^^
What a fucking weasel.

 

[richard_daily]

No it isn't, most smart people, lawyers not included, realize that a "layoff" in and of itself is a temporary situation, as opposed to a outright termination.

Now that's just an outright lie.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Fuck off Merc, I didn't say anything that was incorrect. BTW, you are seeing the beginning of the end for the Volt.

Hey Vette, you have one testicle and you like to stroke cock!

All 100% true. It's manipulative and deceitful since you also have a second testicle and the cock is your own when you masturbate, but let's just call you a one-ball faggot okay?

 

[RightField]

The number of times you've seen me harvest facts from New York Times editorials (or similar editorials) is exactly zero.

And no, I'm not taking democratic talking points. When I go to the BLS for labor data or to JP Morgan Chase for stimulus analysis, that's me using INDEPENDENT RESEARCH. Therefore your accusation against me is patently false.

You appear to believe that if anyone references objective data and analysis that counters your argument, that the person is a Democratic shill. Either that or objective data is actually liberal. You're irrational to the core.

You've said it yourself: you're backing this argument with made-up partisan numbers. In contrast I backed my argument with six separate objective non-partisan sources, four private sector and two public.

Therefore I win the debate. I will not convince you though because you choose to believe propaganda over objectivity.

The error was miscalculating the severity of the upcoming recession, not miscalculating the efficacy of the stimulus. You like to confuse the two in order to reach the conclusion you WANT to reach.

The fact that the recovery has been slow isn't proof that the stimulus didn't work. The stimulus was meant to tackle a smaller recession because that's what we (yes Dems and Repubs) thought we were going to have. It worked fine but it was never designed to single-handedly get us out of the Great Recession.

Your references had nothing to do with the point being made (you often have comprehension problems) and so the references were immaterial...they were not any kind of a factor in the discussions, objective or not.

lol...I can hear your points clearly "Obama's plans would have worked great if it hadn't been for the evil conservatives on the lit boards talking his plans down"...and I'm sure you have lots of "independent research" that supports that contention, maybe even from the Wall Street Journal.

You didn't win anything, you can't seem to tie together facts and points into a coherent and clear argument. I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that you were a paid Obama shill who promises to post on many different boards to support his wacky plans and to belittle his opposition in an effort to rally the impressionable youth vote.

 

[mercury14]

Your references had nothing to do with the point being made (you often have comprehension problems) and so the references were immaterial...they were not any kind of a factor in the discussions, objective or not.

lol...I can hear your points clearly "Obama's plans would have worked great if it hadn't been for the evil conservatives on the lit boards talking his plans down"...and I'm sure you have lots of "independent research" that supports that contention, maybe even from the Wall Street Journal.

You didn't win anything, you can't seem to tie together facts and points into a coherent and clear argument.

My references directly backed the point I made. All six references.

And yes, by any debate standard I won because backed my argument with objectivity - and you backed yours with Breitbart or NRO blogs.

 

[RightField]

My references directly backed the point I made. All six references.

And yes, by any debate standard I won because backed my argument with objectivity - and you backed yours with Breitbart or NRO blogs.

lol... funny.

 

[Sean Renaud]

No it isn't, most smart people, lawyers not included, realize that a "layoff" in and of itself is a temporary situation, as opposed to a outright termination.

I have never heard lay off used as anything but a synonym for fired, you're being let go, we're moving in another direction, we wish you well in all your future endeavors, or terminated.

Perhaps at one time it was a common term for we're not going to pay you for a month but don't worry assuming that you don't find a better job within that time frame we'll bring you back on. It sure as hell isn't a common term today.

 

[mercury14]

lol... funny.

Why is that funny?