Lesson 101

[Vambo]

 

Denis Bechac

 

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.  These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[Gorka]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2019 at 1:20 PM, Vambo said:

 

Denis Bechac

 

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that.  These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

He should have been fired.

[jbluhm86]

Snopes: Socialism Grade Averaging: Did an Economics professor use grading of exams to teach about socialism?

 

This troll email originated all the way back in 2009, for Christ's sake. Example 10,959,656,464 of how you old boomers on here do ZERO research on shit you post and will bite like fish on hooks anything that has "Obama" as a keyword. 😂

[Gorka]

2 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Snopes: Socialism Grade Averaging: Did an Economics professor use grading of exams to teach about socialism?

This troll email originated all the way back in 2009, for Christ's sake. Example 10,959,656,464 of how you old boomers on here do ZERO research on shit you post and will bite like fish on hooks anything that has "Obama" as a keyword. 😂

Oh really now.

Well, what took you so long? Please do provide us with more examples, surely there must be many. .

[Gorka]

So there was liberal joeblo, patiently waiting on the sidelines for a slip up in order to make grand entrance confirming his ill conceived notion that we do "zero research".

The only thing confirmed here is that you and those like you have zero integrity.

[Westside Steve]

So the takeaway is exactly what?

Regardless of the origin it would seem to me that the list seemed rational had true. Just for the hell of it does anyone disagree with that part?

But I've been caught repeating stuff that wasn't exactly what it seemed. We must be vigilant 🤗

WSS

[OldBrownsFan]

We must be vigilant lest Jblu comes swooping down for the kill shot saying..."gotcha now you dreaded BOOMERS!"...

 

[jbluhm86]

17 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

We must be vigilant lest Jblu comes swooping down for the kill shot saying..."gotcha now you dreaded BOOMERS!"...

 

 

2 hours ago, Gorka said:

So there was liberal joeblo, patiently waiting on the sidelines for a slip up in order to make grand entrance confirming his ill conceived notion that we do "zero research".

The only thing confirmed here is that you and those like you have zero integrity.

Interesting to see that I'm somehow living rent free in your minds like you're criminals and I'm some sort of internet board Batman you whisper about. 

[OldBrownsFan]

19 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

 

Interesting to see that I'm somehow living rent free in your minds like you're criminals and I'm some sort of internet board Batman you whisper about. 

 

[jbluhm86]

Just now, OldBrownsFan said:

 

It warms my heart to see you remember what I say and, oddly enough, demonstrate my point.

[OldBrownsFan]

29 minutes ago, jbluhm86 said:

It warms my heart to see you remember what I say and, oddly enough, demonstrate my point.

I perceived you would say that young grasshopper...

[Axe]

Snopes  🤣 🤣🤣

[calfoxwc]

2 hours ago, Axe said:

Snopes  🤣 🤣🤣

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/

Have a nice day, Jblu LOL

********************************

Chief among the Progressive stalwarts at Snopes is “main political fact-checker,” Kim Lacapria, according to the Daily Caller. Ironically, or not, prior to her position as political fact-checker for Snopes, Lacapria was wrote for the Inquisitr, a blog with less than stellar reputation.

Today, Snopes has turned into a sycophantic political surrogate for the Progressive Left, the Obama Administration, and Hillary Clinton. Fancying itself as a “political fact-checker,” it has become completely unreliable, existing as an excuse making machine for the morally relativistic and a propaganda apparatus fueled by unfounded accusations and political talking points; talking points seemingly crafted and issued directly from the Progressive minions of Chicago.

To say Lacapria exhibited “clear partisanship” while writing for Inquisitr would be to ignore her writing sounded more like that of a Democrat speechwriter than that of an objective journalist.

 

Lacapria violated the very first rule of journalistic ethics in describing herself as “openly left-leaning” and a liberal. To stake out a position with such fervor is to admit there exists not an objective bone in her body, which, by that very fact, makes her disqualified – ethically – from “fact-checking” anything political.

While with Inquisitr, she routinely disparaged the whole of the TEA Party Movement, calling those who took to the streets to protest over-taxation and over-reaching government as “TEAhadists.” Lacapria’s comparison of the TEA Party to the fascists of Islam, of course, is a signature trait of the caustically Left.

Aside from fawning over the presidency of Bill Clinton, whose only two real achievements were pretending the financial surplus created by the ending of the Cold War was somehow his economic genius, and escaping impeachment for perjuring himself, Lacapria blindly regurgitated the Progressive talking points of welfare fraud:

 

“Like many GOP ideas about the poor, the panic about using food stamps for alcohol, pornography or guns seems to have been cut from whole cloth – or more likely, the ideas many have about the fantasy of poverty.”

It would appear the future “fact-checker” missed the Congressional Budget Office and General Accounting Office reports on the cost of welfare fraud. In food stamp and EBT card fraud alone, the US government is scammed out of tens of millions of dollars – if not hundreds of millions – annually. That’s a pretty big “fact” to miss for a “fact-checker.”

Exposing her frothing-at-the-mouth hatred for Republicans and Conservatives, Lacapria went so far as to accuse the Bush administration of “criminal negligence” in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Of course, she provided no evidence to support her accusation, a typical tactic of those Progressives who manufacture false narratives and deceptive memes to advance the Leftist cause.

 

Lacapria has manufactured, nuanced, and spun facts about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi, Omar Mateem not “really being” a Democrat despite his official party registration, and Facebook being an above-board and non-manipulative news source.

But Lacapria simply joins the very small crew at Snopes who have existed as bias from the start. David and Barbara Mikkelson, the founders and proprietors of Snopes, have been found on many occasions to have “erred” on the side of the truth best benefiting the Left’s narrative on issues. The very fact the website quotes heavily from the self-identified Left-leaning New York Times illustrates an out-of-the-box bias from the start.

To wit, just as with any online “resource,” you should do your own homework when it comes to fact-checking. Most often it isn’t that hard to divine the truth and you will be better informed with first-source information for doing so. In a world where everyone believes their opinions to be valid, all of us are forced to do our due diligence in the quest for the truth.

 

What do you think about bias political fact-checker at Snopes? Please share the story on Facebook and tell us because we want to hear YOUR voice!

 

[Vambo]

11 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Snopes: Socialism Grade Averaging: Did an Economics professor use grading of exams to teach about socialism?

 

This troll email originated all the way back in 2009, for Christ's sake. Example 10,959,656,464 of how you old boomers on here do ZERO research on shit you post and will bite like fish on hooks anything that has "Obama" as a keyword. 😂

Do you just dis agree about the source or the content, my reason for posting was more of the content. If you have issue with the content please explain.

These may help you out.

The Æsop for Children - Library of Congress Aesop Fables