Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 51 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

51 minutes ago

E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a co-author of the Project 2025 manifesto, said the U.S. economy is not strong enough to cope with the oil crisis triggered by the Middle East conflict and warned rising costs will hurt Americans. “I don’t think this is an economy that is going to be able to handle $100 a barrel for oil, it’s just not,” Antoni told the Financial Times. “The economy is weaker than we thought it was, and inflation is worse than we thought it was.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-tr ... war-chaos/

Blackvegetable » 51 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

51 minutes ago

Not that any of you idiots would recall, but that's the guy Grafty first nominated to replace the woman he fired at BLS, but he was considered too....well....

The National Review has said that "Antoni is nowhere near qualified to be BLS commissioner", suggesting that Trump wants to hire a loyalist for the position, because what "Trump would like is a BLS that is biased in his favor".[17] The New York Times noted that economists from across the political spectrum "found Dr. Antoni's history of distorting economic statistics to support partisan positions" was more concerning than his lack of experience.[18] The Nation has written that "[Antoni's] track record is so alarming that many conservative economists" have denounced the nomination, including Kyle Pomerleau from the American Enterprise Institute, AEI colleague Stan Veuger, and Dave Herbert of the American Institute for Economic Research.[19] 

Blackvegetable » 51 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

51 minutes ago

Following Antoni's nomination, images resurfaced of him in attendance at the January 6 United States Capitol attack. The White House described Antoni as a "bystander to the events" and denied that he was involved in anything "inappropriate or illegal."[20][21] 

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a co-author of the Project 2025 manifesto, said the U.S. economy is not strong enough to cope with the oil crisis triggered by the Middle East conflict and warned rising costs will hurt Americans. “I don’t think this is an economy that is going to be able to handle $100 a barrel for oil, it’s just not,” Antoni told the Financial Times. “The economy is weaker than we thought it was, and inflation is worse than we thought it was.”

https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-tr ... war-chaos/

Not that any of you idiots would recall, but that's the guy Grafty first nominated to replace the woman he fired at BLS, but he was considered too....well....

T

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Deal: Veghead claimed he already answered this question. LOL. If Veghead proves that he did indeed answer the survivorship multiple choice question below, as the question is written and asked, along with his defense of his answer, then I will agree to never come back. I am permabanned. Gone. Like a fart in the wind. If he cannot, then he is out of here for a month. Additionally, his defense cannot be "Because it fits my definition." That is a claim, not a defense. He is to defend why.  His evidence must precede the timestamp upon when this challenge has been agreed upon by both parties. Moreover, he must answer immediately when the mods say "go," That next post. Not the next 600 posts. Either Cannon or Deezer mods.

Exception: I will allow for an exception. If he loses, then I will allow him to stay if he answers it the way it is asked, along with his defense. However, he must do it immediately after the deal has been decided. Not 100 posts later. The very next post of his must be his answer/defense.

Blackvegatble's hypcorisy summed up in one post: [/size]
Blackvegetable » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑7 minutes ago
Very simple questions...

From which you are running...

Vegas » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Cry to Deezer.
no spam

Deal:

Which scenario is an example of survivorship bias in evaluating business success?

A) Believing that reading business books increases revenue after finding many CEOs recommend them.
B) Concluding that most startups fail after analyzing bankrupt companies.
C) Thinking entrepreneurship is easy because most media profiles focus on successful founders.
D) Surveying customers to understand why they chose your product over competitors

Veghead pretending to be superior followed by him getting his *** handed to him:
no spam



no spam

Blackvegetable » Today, 7:15 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:15 am

E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a co-author of the Project 2025 manifesto, said the U.S. economy is not strong enough to cope with the oil crisis triggered by the Middle East conflict and warned rising costs will hurt Americans. “I don’t think this is an economy that is going to be able to handle $100 a barrel for oil, it’s just not,” Antoni told the Financial Times. “The economy is weaker than we thought it was, and inflation is worse than we thought it was.”

no spam

Not that any of you idiots would recall, but that's the guy Grafty first nominated to replace the woman he fired at BLS, but he was considered too....well....

The National Review has said that "Antoni is nowhere near qualified to be BLS commissioner", suggesting that Trump wants to hire a loyalist for the position, because what "Trump would like is a BLS that is biased in his favor".[17] The New York Times noted that economists from across the political spectrum "found Dr. Antoni's history of distorting economic statistics to support partisan positions" was more concerning than his lack of experience.[18] The Nation has written that "[Antoni's] track record is so alarming that many conservative economists" have denounced the nomination, including Kyle Pomerleau from the American Enterprise Institute, AEI colleague Stan Veuger, and Dave Herbert of the American Institute for Economic Research.[19] 

Following Antoni's nomination, images resurfaced of him in attendance at the January 6 United States Capitol attack. The White House described Antoni as a "bystander to the events" and denied that he was involved in anything "inappropriate or illegal."[20][21]