The Sighted Versus the Sightless

It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.
It would be quite a time saver for any reading your posts.

I am pretty sure I nailed you in my first post of this thread.



You've been proven wrong each and every time.
Why would this be any different?
 
Or, why they can’t see even when history reveals the consequences.



1.The government school system has been an utter failure, that is if one believes their mission is education. Hence, the victims, the graduates of said institutions, are oblivious of recent history, and hardly notice our slipping, being pushed, into the abyss of the Soviet experiment.

2. The advantage that Marx had was knowing what to promise, based on the human desire to have more, earned or not. Marx’s local franchise, Democrat Party, has not only encouraged the lower characteristics of greed, jealousy, and envy…..it has parlayed those into political power. And even rewarded those who acted criminally on the traits: Democrat DAs, judges and prosecutors released all of the rioters and arsonists that the police arrested.



3. “Since the end of the Second World War, however, a new ‘ethic’ has come into being, according to which the envious man is perfectly acceptable. Progressively fewer individuals and groups are ashamed of their envy, but instead make out that its existence in their temperaments axiomatically proves the existence of ‘social injustice,’ which must be eliminated for their benefit.”
Helmut Schoeck, “Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior,” p. 179

Envy is one of those human characteristics which should be held in check. But when 'democracy' looks the other way, and accepts it, it becomes the basis for the disintegration of a society.





4. Just last week we saw envy put into action:

"Extreme squatters knocking on doors to demand wealthy Seattle residents give them their homes"
Extreme squatters knocking on doors to demand wealthy Seattle residents give them their homes

Members of a group identifying itself as “Moorish Sovereign Citizens” are demanding that wealthy residents near Seattle turn over their homes to them
www.bizpacreview.com


And why not, after all it is the unspoken promise by the Democrats/Liberals.





5. Certainly the ersatz Bolsheviks, the Democrat Party, can find an argument for displacing those who have homes far larger than is necessary for their small families, and, in the name of ‘social justice,’ be moved to habitation more …legitimate… for the size of their families.

It’s only fair. And doesn’t the Constitution allow exactly that?
“Eminent domain in the United States refers to the power of a state or the federal government to take private property for public use while requiring "just" compensation to be given to the original owner.” Eminent domain in the United States - Wikipedia




Absurd you say?


Didn’t you say exactly that a few years back when some nuts said men could change into women? Now you vote for it.
The following post will reveal the results of the Democrat toying with human aspirations.

And, about that 'worker's paradise' that Democrat voters can't wait to achieve....

Huh?

What is your thesis statement exactly? You're against public education now?

Even by the standards of your typical ramble, that was especially incoherent.



"You're against public education now?"

Public education????

It isn't.

Ever since it was subsumed to Liberal indoctrination, there has been very little education.

Take a glance at the scores of American students on international exams.

1606846558582.png




So you're a government school grad, huh?


Bet I know who you voted for.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree with your schooling question/statement, but, two things come to mind immediately- Republicans went to the same schools and Republican observations of History are pretty low on the list of priorities for study, even in passing-

It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students. The reality is any indoctrination has been from the right, not the left. No subject bears this out more than History in High School and Economics in college. Take Atlas Shrugged. In most business schools it is required reading. Is it because of the economic concepts it reveals? Is it because of the great literary value it provides? No, it is required reading because the Koch foundation donated millions of dollars to the business department. It is one of the poorest written books ever, has no economic or business significance, and simply perpetuates a myth of a fantasy world that only the most simple minded can believe.

Public schooling in action...

When the public school gives you two sides, you can be assured that both of them are wrong.

Regarding Atlas Shrugged, it certainly isn't required reading in most business schools. But it sure beats the hell out of the state worship religion.



"....state worship religion."



Nail on the head, Normie!!!



Militant Secularism.....with it's denominations: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, and Fascism.
 
I don't disagree with your schooling question/statement, but, two things come to mind immediately- Republicans went to the same schools and Republican observations of History are pretty low on the list of priorities for study, even in passing-

It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students. The reality is any indoctrination has been from the right, not the left. No subject bears this out more than History in High School and Economics in college. Take Atlas Shrugged. In most business schools it is required reading. Is it because of the economic concepts it reveals? Is it because of the great literary value it provides? No, it is required reading because the Koch foundation donated millions of dollars to the business department. It is one of the poorest written books ever, has no economic or business significance, and simply perpetuates a myth of a fantasy world that only the most simple minded can believe.

Public schooling in action...

When the public school gives you two sides, you can be assured that both of them are wrong.

Regarding Atlas Shrugged, it certainly isn't required reading in most business schools. But it sure beats the hell out of the state worship religion.



"....state worship religion."



Nail on the head, Normie!!!



Militant Secularism.....with it's denominations: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, and Fascism.

Would you say fascism and nationalism are the same? The secular nationalist regimes in Iraq and Syria were influenced by European fascism so was Nasser regime in Egypt.
 
I don't disagree with your schooling question/statement, but, two things come to mind immediately- Republicans went to the same schools and Republican observations of History are pretty low on the list of priorities for study, even in passing-

It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students. The reality is any indoctrination has been from the right, not the left. No subject bears this out more than History in High School and Economics in college. Take Atlas Shrugged. In most business schools it is required reading. Is it because of the economic concepts it reveals? Is it because of the great literary value it provides? No, it is required reading because the Koch foundation donated millions of dollars to the business department. It is one of the poorest written books ever, has no economic or business significance, and simply perpetuates a myth of a fantasy world that only the most simple minded can believe.

Public schooling in action...

When the public school gives you two sides, you can be assured that both of them are wrong.

Regarding Atlas Shrugged, it certainly isn't required reading in most business schools. But it sure beats the hell out of the state worship religion.



"....state worship religion."



Nail on the head, Normie!!!



Militant Secularism.....with it's denominations: Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Nazism, and Fascism.

Would you say fascism and nationalism are the same? The secular nationalist regimes in Iraq and Syria were influenced by European fascism so was Nasser regime in Egypt.


No.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
 
10. What sort of evidence of the fallacies of Democrat policies is needed before that party is shunned?



Need a witness who has the standing to testify as to the debilitation of communism?

Boris Yeltsin himself showed the error of this attempt:
In September of 1991, the President of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, was asked about the history and future of Communism:
“One of their more dramatic responses came to a question by Los Angeles actor Ben Stein, who asked whether the two leaders believed any country should live under communism.

Yeltsin answered first: "This experiment which was conducted on our soil was a tragedy for our people and it was too bad that it happened on our territory. It would have been better if the experiment had happened in some small country, to make it clear that it was a Utopian idea, although a beautiful idea."

Gorbachev said history has shown that "that model has failed which was brought about in our country. And I believe that this is a lesson not only for our people but for all peoples.”
GORBACHEV, YELTSIN SAY COMMUNISM FAILED USSR



Now, there's someone who learned a valuable lesson......

.....unlike Democrat voters.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
LOL, been fun toying with you. Don't worry, I will pop up again some day. Worthless idiot troll.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
LOL, been fun toying with you. Don't worry, I will pop up again some day. Worthless idiot troll.


I'm copacetic with readers noting how I schooled you today.


It appears you are not.


And that's the take-away.


Be gone.
 
Last edited:
11. The desire for equality of income or of wealth is one aspect of a more general desire for equality. “The essence of the moral idea of socialism is that human equality is the supreme value in life.”
Martin Malia, “A Fatal Logic,” The National Interest, Spring 1993, pp. 80, 87



I don't believe that any of the Liberal elites who champion such equality actually believe it.....isn't it obvious, when Obama cashes the checks he received for the books he 'wrote'?

The real question is, how stupid are the supporters of the Democrat Party who actually believe the propaganda???

Ever see Joe Biden;s house?
“Redfin estimates the home is now worth $1,654, 478.”

1606861843420.png





Your 'equality' guy, China Joe, has four homes.

What else do you suckers believe from these folks?
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
LOL, been fun toying with you. Don't worry, I will pop up again some day. Worthless idiot troll.


I'm copacetic with readers noting how I schooled you today.


It appears you are not.


And that's the take-away.


Be gone.
LMAO, you are a legend in your own mind. First, you have yet to counter that there is a difference between 2% and .01%. Those numbers are concrete, documented, and consistent. Those numbers completely rebuke your ignorant claim that the coronavirus is equal to the seasonal flu, which was a big part of your OP. And you have not submitted a single rebuttal to those numbers.

You have not even attempted to counter the very real fact, that wearing a mask is to protect others and not yourself. In fact, you have absolutely ignored it. That reality completely destroys your Danish study, completely counters your ignorant argument that wearing masks is useless.

I mean not meaning to brag here, but I was ranked in the top twenty in the country in High School debate. I was recruited by both Yale and Harvard. I completely decimated teams from such places as Philip Exeter, Deerfield Academy, and Sidwell Friends. And if you give two shits, I went to Fred T. Foard, a high school that Howard Stern famously claimed was the most redneck school in the country. Mostly because we ran a deerskin up the flagpole of our rival, Hickory High.

You absolutely suck. Your debating skills are non-existent. I completely countered every one of your contentions and you provided no rebuttal whatsoever. You are the definition of a troll. A real messageboard would have banned you a long time ago. Anytime, any time you like, I will debate you in a real format. And that, even though I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Hundreds of clients, tens of millions of dollars under management, and that is my side job. Primary job is running a five million dollar a year business generating a profit of over twenty percent. Meanwhile, you are tapping away in your Daddy's basement with no job, no life, and a massively overinflated ego. If I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth I would be fabulously rich.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
LOL, been fun toying with you. Don't worry, I will pop up again some day. Worthless idiot troll.


I'm copacetic with readers noting how I schooled you today.


It appears you are not.


And that's the take-away.


Be gone.
LMAO, you are a legend in your own mind. First, you have yet to counter that there is a difference between 2% and .01%. Those numbers are concrete, documented, and consistent. Those numbers completely rebuke your ignorant claim that the coronavirus is equal to the seasonal flu, which was a big part of your OP. And you have not submitted a single rebuttal to those numbers.

You have not even attempted to counter the very real fact, that wearing a mask is to protect others and not yourself. In fact, you have absolutely ignored it. That reality completely destroys your Danish study, completely counters your ignorant argument that wearing masks is useless.

I mean not meaning to brag here, but I was ranked in the top twenty in the country in High School debate. I was recruited by both Yale and Harvard. I completely decimated teams from such places as Philip Exeter, Deerfield Academy, and Sidwell Friends. And if you give two shits, I went to Fred T. Foard, a high school that Howard Stern famously claimed was the most redneck school in the country. Mostly because we ran a deerskin up the flagpole of our rival, Hickory High.

You absolutely suck. Your debating skills are non-existent. I completely countered every one of your contentions and you provided no rebuttal whatsoever. You are the definition of a troll. A real messageboard would have banned you a long time ago. Anytime, any time you like, I will debate you in a real format. And that, even though I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Hundreds of clients, tens of millions of dollars under management, and that is my side job. Primary job is running a five million dollar a year business generating a profit of over twenty percent. Meanwhile, you are tapping away in your Daddy's basement with no job, no life, and a massively overinflated ego. If I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth I would be fabulously rich.



"LMAO, you are a legend in your own mind. First, you have yet to counter that there is a difference between 2% and .01%. Those numbers are concrete, documented, and consistent. "

What are the symptoms of the Wuhan Red Death?

What are the symptoms of the seasonal flu?

You were suckered by a political ploy.....and you're still a sucker.
 
It is laughable when the right complains about the public school system and its indoctrination and socialization of students.
I'm not laughing- Atlas Shrugged, in economics, is about Austrian economics, which is way more effective in wealth production through market influence than man dictated control- indoctrination takes many forms- all that is required is giving answers and not teaching how to find answers- oh, I'm not on the right either- I don't subscribe to the left/right paradigm- socilaization is everyone is equal except the more equal- the more equal being the parroted democratically elected, even in a republican form of governance stupid people call us a democracy, having learned at the trough of Public Education which guarantees conformity from age 6 on to age 18- the most important formative years and individual has-

What's "laughable" is one side feeling it is better than the other side when either side is merely a different rate of descent to the same destination- IMproper education, from and by both sides ensure and insure that particular flaw- and yes, it is a flaw- NO passing on of knowledge is accurate, or complete, without a foundation of Truth- Truth is constant and knowledge evolves- though many feel (believe) it (knowledge) to be stagnant- it ain't-

Another laughable moment is when the question, where in the constitution is authority granted for gov't edict/mandate on education come from? I can't find that power/authority "grant"- and I've read the constitution a lot- and I have great reading comprehension- oh, btw, my formal education stopped at age 16, 56 years ago- I am one of the fortunate, I suppose, since my indoctrination stopped early, but what little formal education I obtained was in a rural setting in west Texas and it takes a while for shit to roll down hill-

I also have an inquisitive nature which I exploit, to, of all things, learn! Imagine that, I actually want my knowledge to evolve-

The Austrian school of economics has been discredited since the 1930's. Almost all modern economists reject the concepts, the Austrian school avoids empirical data and rejects the scientific method. So why in the hell would a business department at a major university require the reading of Atlas Shrugged?

And no, you will not find anything about education in the US Constitution. But I am almost certain that you will find it in the constitution of every single state. In Texas, it is Article Seven.



Did you use the term 'scientific' in any connection to 'economics'???


OMG!!!



"When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".
The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".
The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

Einstein was a Georgist.


I just identified you based on your posts.

If you hurry, you may be able to grab "Fool" for your avi.

Economics is a Social Science, like anthropology, education, and political science.


Another lesson for you?

Sure.

"Social science" is a term of art designed to give credence to the bogus.

Pretty much what you are filled with.

I am a little confused about your problem with social sciences. But it also appears you have a problem with the formal sciences, especially understanding them. Like math. When you claim the difference between two percent, and .01% is a rounding error, it is more than obvious that you have no understanding of the formal science of mathematics.

The reality is you prove time and time again that you are home schooled. You ignore science when it suits your purposes, you create science in order to confirm your beliefs. And if, by some rare chance, real science agrees with your position, suddenly you will become the biggest advocate for science imaginable. Like the mask study you quoted at the beginning of this thread. That was science, actually, a social science engaged in collecting empirical data. You quoted it, probably have quoted it dozens of times in the multitude of troll threads you post each and every day. And you claim it is proof positive of your own beliefs.

And what did I say? I said it proved that masks cannot protect one from the Coronavirus. But that is not the purpose of wearing a mask. The purpose of wearing a mask is to protect other people from the Coronavirus. So the study did not really confirm your belief, that wearing masks is useless. It did not show that wearing a mask does not protect other people. The real question that the study did not ask is, how many of those people that always wore a mask infected other people? With no data reported I will claim it is zero, and hence, the value of wearing a mask has now been proven. That from the very study you claim shows otherwise.

And I am quite sure you did not attend a private university, or maybe you did, but you certainly do not have a degree. Why don't you tell me what top notch university you attended AGAIN. See, that is the problem with being a liar, you have to remember your stories. It has probably been years since you told me what prestigious university you attended, your problem is I don't forget shit.


"I am a little confused ..."


Let's leave it right there.
LOL, been fun toying with you. Don't worry, I will pop up again some day. Worthless idiot troll.


I'm copacetic with readers noting how I schooled you today.


It appears you are not.


And that's the take-away.


Be gone.
LMAO, you are a legend in your own mind. First, you have yet to counter that there is a difference between 2% and .01%. Those numbers are concrete, documented, and consistent. Those numbers completely rebuke your ignorant claim that the coronavirus is equal to the seasonal flu, which was a big part of your OP. And you have not submitted a single rebuttal to those numbers.

You have not even attempted to counter the very real fact, that wearing a mask is to protect others and not yourself. In fact, you have absolutely ignored it. That reality completely destroys your Danish study, completely counters your ignorant argument that wearing masks is useless.

I mean not meaning to brag here, but I was ranked in the top twenty in the country in High School debate. I was recruited by both Yale and Harvard. I completely decimated teams from such places as Philip Exeter, Deerfield Academy, and Sidwell Friends. And if you give two shits, I went to Fred T. Foard, a high school that Howard Stern famously claimed was the most redneck school in the country. Mostly because we ran a deerskin up the flagpole of our rival, Hickory High.

You absolutely suck. Your debating skills are non-existent. I completely countered every one of your contentions and you provided no rebuttal whatsoever. You are the definition of a troll. A real messageboard would have banned you a long time ago. Anytime, any time you like, I will debate you in a real format. And that, even though I am busier than a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Hundreds of clients, tens of millions of dollars under management, and that is my side job. Primary job is running a five million dollar a year business generating a profit of over twenty percent. Meanwhile, you are tapping away in your Daddy's basement with no job, no life, and a massively overinflated ego. If I could buy you for what you are worth and sell you for what you think you are worth I would be fabulously rich.



"LMAO, you are a legend in your own mind. First, you have yet to counter that there is a difference between 2% and .01%. Those numbers are concrete, documented, and consistent. "

What are the symptoms of the Wuhan Red Death?

What are the symptoms of the seasonal flu?

You were suckered by a political ploy.....and you're still a sucker.

So, one of the symptoms of the seasonal flu is not being able to breath. God but you are one stupid bitch.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top