While I can agree that there are some students who use school as an excuse to abuse adderall, I definitely don't agree that this student's letter applies to everyone. I'm a student at the College double majoring in biology and discovery informatics and I can certainly say that I haven't been taking adderall because I am lazy. Prior to this semester, I have earned a 3.85 GPA or greater in both of my majors and still managed to have a life and a job as a research assistant. I should mention that I also didn't eat my prescription like candy. This is my last semester at the College and I've been feeling the effects of not having adderall and I just hope I make it through without bombing my GPA. Also, I haven't ever been offered adderall 'under the table.' Maybe it's the company I keep, but the writer's experience has certainly not been my experience.
Still more evidence that conservatives are booger eaters
if there was a god workers prayers would be answered Nimrata HALEY would resign in disgrace Glenn Beck would be hospitalized in Mormonland psyche ward out west
Who needs a study? All you have to do is read these posts.
Another study that finds those with lower cognitive ability gravitate toward right wing ideologies.
Huffington Post is a shitrag, too.
And Mat yet again proves my point that liberals are incapable of objectively looking at issues and forming their own opinion. If you had said that you don't read anything on huffingtonpost because they are a bunch of twisted, whacked out liberal idiots he would have accused you of being a moron and incapable of understanding their brilliance. Walter Williams has a PhD in economics but since he is capable of absolutely destroying liberal arguments with a few stabs at a keyboard he must be wrong. It is this type of closed mindedness and misguided arrogance from liberals that has completely screwed up Washington and unfortunately there is no end in sight.
Better continue to take your meds and just ignore my posts.
I'm not going anywhere. :)
4 paragraphs of name calling and expletives doesn't do much to support your position. I'd love to read anything you want to post about conservatism. Pros and cons. As well as leftest thought pros and cons. Links or cut and paste makes no difference to me. I enjoy the knowledge.
We will always disagree,apparently, thats fine. The discussion is what will drive the republic forward. I hope.
Unfortunately. because i do believe that President Obama will be relected, we shall all see what a push to the far left does to the Republic in four years.
First hand and up close.
Actually, I read it enough to know it was a cut and paste. Then I checked its source. Then, I rolled my eyes and tried not to herniate myself from the strain of not laughing out loud and/or howling out to the heavens for some sort of divine intervention to please pick me up off of this godforsaken hellhole filled with such miserably annoying people such as "Doctor" Williams and the people who think it's funny to cut-and-paste his tripe without the least little bit of irony and probably without fully understanding just how seriously out of touch right wing economics is from the rest of the functional planet.
And, I almost went back to it to disassemble it point by miserable and ignorant and discredited point and then it dawned on me that it would be an absolutely pointless effort. At the end of my troubles, I'd only get you or one of the Clarkie sockpuppets dragging me down by claiming my reasoning was faulty, even if it isn't. That is, after all, how all "debates" on the Internet work now. You present your horseshit, someone calls you out on it, and you stick your fingers in your fucking ears and scream "NYAH NYAH NYAH CANNOT HEAR YOU! YOU MUST BE STUPID!"
So, it's pretty pointless to get into a debate over a cut-and-paste hackjob from townhall.com. Even though I could probably point to any number of instances of communal arrangements benefiting a society (you'd just poo-poo them as not valid) and I could probably find a lot of evidence from biology and anthropology to show you that not only are cooperation and communal arrangements normal among humans, but that they are absolutely necessary to explain our evolution (at which point, the religious right wingers would just go apoplectic and stain themselves with scorn), I just don't see that there's any point in it.
Mainly because, as I've said before, the right wing in this country is completely and totally intellectually bankrupt and culturally irrelevant. Your policies are so atavistic and inane that quite often even your own leadership don't understand what they are talking about. Your economic models have been so thoroughly discredited as to be laughable that you still discuss them with a straight face, and your moral arguments are so unbelievably unbearable as to cause most people with even a modicum of intelligence intense physical pain when they are brought up in public.
Speaking of which, I need to go get some more headache meds.
Cut and Paste is an excellent tool and it works. You read the post, which is the point of course. Knowledge is power.
Interestingly you never post a serious rebuttal of any post, just a snarky remark or a personal attack. I have to assume that Dr Williams is correct!
Feel free to cut and paste.
It's very funny to see a right-winger correctly define "survival of the fittest" when it was the right-wing that used it to debase humanity all the way back to Malthus.
Nice cut-and-paste by the way. What's next? Some hot and steamy Von Mises porn?
The real assault on economic freedom is coming from the left!
"President Barack Obama, at a Capital Hilton fundraising event, told the crowd, “We can't go back to this brand of you’re-on-your-own economics." Throughout my professional career as an economist, I’ve never come across the theory of “you’re-on-your-own economics.” I’m guessing what the president means by -- and finds offensive in -- “you’re-on-your-own economics” is that it’s a system in which people are held responsible for their actions, that they take risks and must live with the results, that people can’t force others to pay for their mistakes, and that they can’t live at the expense of other people.
President Obama’s vision was shared by our Pilgrim Fathers of the Plymouth Colony in modern-day Massachusetts. They established a communist system. They all farmed together, and whatever they produced was put in a common storehouse. A certain amount of food was rationed to each person regardless of his contribution to the work. Many Pilgrims complained that they were too weak from hunger to do their share of the work. As deeply religious as the Pilgrims were, they took to stealing from one another. Gov. William Bradford, writing his history of the colony in “Of Plymouth Plantation,” said, “So as it well appeared that famine must still ensue, the next year also if not some way prevented.”
In 1623, after much debate, a new system was set up, in which every family was assigned a parcel of land, and whatever they produced belonged to the family. Gov. Bradford then observed, “The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.” After Gov. Bradford’s establishment of what Obama calls “you’re-on-your-own economics,” harvests were so bountiful that Bradford is credited with establishing what we now call Thanksgiving.
There are several seemingly immutable, hard-wired characteristics about humans that socialists, liberals and progressives find difficult to deal with and would like to change. People tend to work harder and produce more when they own what they produce. Property is better cared for when it is privately owned. People love to exchange, what Adam Smith called a “propensity to truck (and) barter.” To suppress these characteristics requires brute force.
President Obama also told the Washington Hilton crowd that “we are not a country that was built on the idea of survival of the fittest.” Obama is not by himself, but “survival of the fittest” is one of the greatest misunderstandings of Charles Darwin’s pathbreaking work “On the Origin of Species.” When Obama and most other people use the expression “survival of the fittest,” they suggest that a bunch of people or animals are competing with one another and the strongest, smartest or cleverest survives. That’s not what Darwin and evolutionary biologists have in mind. Instead, what they have in mind is that those who survive have characteristics that make them better-equipped to survive and hence reproduce themselves in a particular environment. They are not laying waste to their competitors.
Let’s try a few survival of the fittest questions. Which companies do you think should survive and expand, those that can meet the changing wants of their customers in a least-cost fashion or those that cannot do so? If the means of communication become cheaper through fax machines, the Internet and telephones, should subsidies be expended to help the U.S. Postal Service survive? Years ago, typing was done on a mechanical typewriter; milk was delivered to doorsteps via horse and wagon; slide rules were used to make calculations. Should any of these products and practices have survived, or was it OK for natural selection to consign them to the dustbin of history?
Try cornering the president or his supporters, and ask them whether they believe government should ensure that the unfit survive and rather than “you’re-on-your-own economics” there should be “you’re-on-somebody-else economics.”
- dr.walter williams 1-18-2012
Nevertheless, Mr. TheBicep, it is unwise to let misinformation and poor logic go unchallenged.
While I certainly agree with your assessment, I think there's plenty of evidence floating around that the GOP has certainly lurched much further to the right relative to the Democrats in the least ten years or so. Both parties continue to occupy a fairly narrow spectrum of the center-right, but the continued Republican assault on personal, political, and economic freedom is one that cannot be left completely unchallenged simply because the Democrats offer an only slightly better alternative.
Oh it is so fun when the 2-party folks get the tails wagged. The WWE is less fixed than the 2 party game. They laugh at the public for buying into the 'political divisiveness' while having the ability to give themselves raises. A vote for D or R is a vote for both. They help each other survive.
I thought "experts" were automatically disqualified in conservative thought because they are "educated elites".
Seriously, come on, At some point we have to hold the person that occupies the White House to his own actions and words. I don't care what party or political bent. The time for excuses and finger pointing has long passed. He works for us. On my own job, If i had a record that he has,after 3 years, and was blaming the previous occupier of my job, I would be in the unemployment line.
I'd consider voting for plenty of other Democrats at this point, They sure couldn't do any worse.
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year from now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”
- Not one new net job has been gained since the year 2007.
- About 302,000 new homes were sold last year. That's less than the 323,000 sold in 2010, making last year's sales the worst on records dating back to 1963.
-- The new year has greeted Americans with the highest January gas prices ever, and some analysts say prices could get close to $5 a gallon in some areas during the warm-weather driving season.
- State of the union 2012 falsehoods.
President Obama said “the Taliban’s momentum has been broken” in Afghanistan. But targeted assassinations continue, and at least one independent foreign policy expert says the enemy may just be waiting until the U.S. leaves.
- The president said a get-tough tariff on tire imports from China has saved more than 1,000 U.S. jobs. But tire industry officials say Chinese imports have simply been replaced by imports from other countries.
- He took credit for putting “more boots on the border than ever before.” That’s true, but the big increase was under George W. Bush. And a decrease in illegal border crossings is due mainly to the lack of jobs in the U.S., experts say.
That's what happens when one takes office right when a major recession hits.
Obama has lost a total of -1,633,000 net jobs since he entered office. Not one new net job has been gained since the year 2007. The percentage of unemployed, plus marginally attached and discouraged workers stands at 10.5% as of December 2011, versus an average of 5.5% to 7.0% during the prior eight years. The civilian labor force has contracted by -739,000 workers since February of 2009, for an average loss of -246,333 per year, versus average growth of 1,304,500 per year in the eight years prior to Obama.
I find it humorous that conservatives love to use stereotypes until the stereotypes are applied to them. They see all Arabs as terrorists, all Hispanics as illegals, and all blacks as lazy criminals who don't want to work, but as soon as someone points out that conservatives are racist morons they get hysterical. If you're going to support the profiling of people, you can't complain about the profile that emerges. All stereotypes contain a grain of truth or they wouldn't be stereotypes, right?
nofaith, it easy to understand why you would want to ignore the fact that Obama has created over 3 million private sector jobs over the last three years. That fact doesn't fit the narrative you'd like to promote.
I Douche Yuengling, I have no desire to follow your pea brain down some irrelevant worm hole about the history of the 17th Amendment. If you weren't such a retard you might have recognized how the Republicans are perverting the intent of the Founders with regard to their use of the filibuster. Was it the Founders intent to require a 60 vote super-majority to pass legislation in the Senate or did they believe in a simple majority? Maybe you could have quoted us some Hamilton from Federalist No 75. “All provisions which require more than a majority of any body to its resolutions have a direct tendency to embarrass the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the sense of the majority to that of the minority.” This is a much more relevant and interesting discussion in the current context. It's a shame you are too dumb to understand it.
On that note, Who is Vera Baker?
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2015,
Charleston City Paper