Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
And before you lecture like a pedantic, arrogant tool, maybe check to see if you're adding anything to the convo whatsoever.With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
Folks with an education are capable of both: one studies many perspectives, and judges truth and reality.
I didn't mean that you should employ same...it would require a certain natural ability you've....sadly....been deprived of.
For the future:
Before being a smartass, it is wise to first ensure one is smart. Otherwise one is merely being an ass.
Someone should have informed you.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.
When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.
Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.
All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.
But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.
Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?
Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.
Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.
Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.
That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.
When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.
So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.
I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.
Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.
That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?
2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?
3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.
When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.
Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.
All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.
But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.
Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?
Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.
Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.
Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.
That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.
When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.
So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.
I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.
Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.
That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.
The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.
You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.
With charity one has to sing some religious songs before being fed.
Free will....
Life is all about choices...unless one is a socialist like you..
Then you are relieved of the necessity of thinking.
In Life magazine, April 7, 1947, Prof. Arthur M. SchlesingerJr., national co-chairman of ADA, declared: "The existence of Franklin Roosevelt relieved American liberals for a dozen years of the responsibility of thinking for themselves."
And so many years later...you remain so.
"Think for yourself!" says the woman quoting someone else.
It is a funny comment. But there is a subtle difference in meaning.
When we say "think for yourself", we are not saying go off and read nothing, learn nothing, and come up with all original thoughts isolated from all existing knowledge.
Almost no one has ever done this. Einstein didn't start playing with lettered blocks, and then make up his theory of relativity. Steven Hawking didn't create all of his theories and science by staring at bubbles in the bath tub.
All of the greatest minds, read and learned the existing knowledge of the day, and the existing data.
But the question is, what do you do with the information, and the data, and the theories once you get them.
Do you just mindless parrot the data? Or do you analyze it, consider it, maul it over, think it through, and then come up with your own ideas based on the facts, and the theories, and information available?
Let me give you a simple example of exactly what I mean.
Consider the research on minimum wage, with the now famous 1993 paper that determined that raising the minimum wage created jobs. Famous research.
Now, many people simply read the headline "research finds minimum wage creates jobs", and that's it. Ding. Game over. Parrot mode activated! No thinking. No independent thought. Just, this paper says it, therefore it's true, therefore I'll repeat it.
That's not thinking independently. That is being an ideological robot.
When I was told about this, the first thing I did was find the actual paper the news article referred to. I then read the paper the news article referred to. I then discovered some glaring failures in the research. The biggest and most obvious error was that they excluded from their survey all restaurants that had closed, and that the number of restaurants that had closed was double on the side with the higher minimum wage, than the side with the lower minimum wage.
So in a paper supposedly proving that the minimum wage created more jobs, they had simply ignored all the stores that had closed, and removed from the data of all those lost jobs, out of the conclusion.
I came to the conclusion, that the paper not only didn't support minimum wage, but actually proved what most economists the world over have always said: The minimum wage eliminates jobs.
Now I'm quoting other economists when I say that, am I not? But again, the difference is, I fact checked the information, and determined the people I'm quoting are correct, and the information to the contrary was wrong.
That's what we mean by "think for yourself". It doesn't mean, don't consider what people say. It means consider it, yes.... but don't mindlessly assume it's true, just because your ideology likes it.
The minimum wage has been raised many times, and it's been proven -- in countless "laboratories of democracy" in various states -- NOT to eliminate jobs. On the contrary. More money in the hands of more people is good for the economy.
You're engaging in confirmation bias. It is possible to do that and still find sources that back you up. Hell, there are people who can find "sources" that "prove" evolution is a lie.
Right..... Compare Greece and Germany. Greece had a relatively high minimum wage compared to their GDP, and their minimum wage was indexed to inflation. Germany on the other hand, didn't even have a minimum wage until 2015. Now which did better?
We Are Seeing The Effects Of Seattle's $15 An Hour Minimum Wage
SeaTac, fewer employees per restaurant, higher prices to consumers. Exactly as we predicted.
Seriously, anyone who thinks the Minimum wage doesn't harm jobs, ask yourself.... if the guy who changes your oil had a minimum wage of $100 an hour.... would you hire him to change your oil? Unless you are Donald Trump, chances are.... no.
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?
2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?
3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.
No starvation?
Lie.
Digital History
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?
2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?
3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.
No starvation?
Lie.
Digital History
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
I never lie....and I'm never wrong.
US population :123.1 million (1930)
"...in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."
That means 0.00000089% of the population.
That's pretty much zero, you moron.
And you're claiming it to be a national epidemic of starvation.
You must be a Liberal, huh?
No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?
2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?
3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.
No starvation?
Lie.
Digital History
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
I never lie....and I'm never wrong.
US population :123.1 million (1930)
"...in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger."
That means 0.00000089% of the population.
That's pretty much zero, you moron.
And you're claiming it to be a national epidemic of starvation.
You must be a Liberal, huh?
#1, you witless moron, I never claimed there was an "epidemic."
#2, you said -- because you clearly forgot -- that starvation was "never never at any time" a situation.
110 deaths in one city in one year certainly proves that to be an out-and-out lie.
Republicans love to blame the poor.
Then they insist women have unwanted children.
Most of those getting food stamps are Republican.
5.8 million jobs available because people don't have the skills.
And Republicans want to cut school funding or introduce Bible studies that do nothing but bring people down.
Hoover checked every day and said no one was starving, and in addition, a new business enterprise had been created, selling apples on street corners. As long as we had garbage dumps or garbage cans behind restaurants no one needed to go hungry-- but the aged.No, economic depression are not good for society, going without food is not healthy, and starving peo;le by taking away their welfare and then shooting them for rioting is something that Andillusion said should be done.
But thats OK Political Chick, you have the Constitutional right to be a mean girl, lol.
1. "....No, economic depression are not good for society,..."
Why, then, did Franklin Delano Roosevelt make certain that it endured for twice as long as any of the fifty or so previous economic downturns?
2. "going without food is not healthy,"
As I proved earlier, starvation was never....never....at any time, a situation in America.
You keep referring to this fabrication.....
.....why?
3. Shouldn't honesty be the cornerstone of your posts?
They are with mine.
No starvation?
Lie.
Digital History
President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
