Do you believe women should be able to have elective abortions?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-05-24T15:12:00+00:00

The point of laws is to make society a better place. Not to be some moral code.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-05-03T20:23:08+00:00

Shouldn't TwoXChromosomes be a sub for people with Two X chromosomes?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-05-03T20:21:49+00:00

Yes, females may pursue other harmful methods otherwise. I think abortion is wrong but I think it should be legal.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-28T01:26:37+00:00

Lmao the irony. At least I know one of us is capable of doing math.

Check your numbers. 3000 deaths over 80, and 240 of them were unvaxxed meanwhile the vax rate is 95% for that age group. 1000 deaths for 70-79 and 129 were unvaxed while their vax rate is 99.5%+. Do the math yourself and maybe people will think you're smart.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T19:35:12+00:00

Ah yes, you have no rebuttal to my point that by the numbers, you provided, vaccination cut deaths in half. So you link to a video which has to include the disclaimer:

*THIS VIDEO IS NOT MEDICAL ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE USED AS SUCH. CONSULT YOUR PHYSICIAN IF YOU HAVE MEDICAL NEEDS/QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED

Anyway, not only does that video not say "vaccines dont work" the article they use to claim myocarditis, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0

is an observational study which really does not impress me. Regardless, as that paper itself says:

In summary, this population-based study quantifies for the first time the risk of several rare cardiac adverse events associated with three COVID-19 vaccines as well as SARS-CoV-2 infection. Vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 in adults was associated with a small increase in the risk of myocarditis within a week of receiving the first dose of both adenovirus and mRNA vaccines, and after the second dose of both mRNA vaccines. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of hospitalization or death from myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmia.*

Given the exponential growth of viruses, and the fact that all the numbers show vaccines reduce deaths and slow the spread of covid. Even if it a small reduction, given exponential growth, a small change in growth rate makes a big difference. For example the difference between 1 person giving 9 people covid and 10 is 59,000 versus 100,000 by 5 generations . It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that vaccinating everyone has caused a reduction in deaths from COVID, that exceeds any adverse effects resulting from the vaccine..

Have fun with your schizophrenic paranoia though.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T19:17:31+00:00

Ad hominem! Nice!

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T19:17:02+00:00

That article you have linked is not about death rates or hospitalization.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T19:16:22+00:00

One dimensional thinking. If the vaccine prevented deaths then they work. If 100% of people were vaccinated some would die, and 100% of them would be vaccinated. From the numbers I gave with a 1% base rate of deaths among elderly, 95% vaccinated, and 9 in 10 deaths being vaccinated, would mean 50% reduction in deaths.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T19:14:31+00:00

(3000+1000+500+200)/(3000+1000+500+200+100+50+10+10)=96.5%

So, yeah. Like 100% of the deaths. It's okay you're stupid!!!

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T01:23:25+00:00

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1283986/covid-19-vaccinations-in-england-by-gender-and-age/

Like 95%+ of 50+ are vaccinated and 50+ make up like 100% of those deaths. If vaccines did nothing we'd see around 19/20, not 9/10. So if the risk of death from covid with no vaccine is 1%, in 2000 people we'd have 20 deaths. But instead we vaccinate 95% of people and we end up with 9 in 10 deaths being in vaccinated people. Or in other worlds, 100 people are unvaccinated and 1 dies (1%), and 9 vaccinated people die (so that 9 in 10 deaths are from those vaccinated). So 95% being vaccinated means around half as many people die! If 100% were vaccinated, we'd have 9+9/1900 deaths = 9.47 deaths.

It's okay to not be very smart! Relative risk and absolute risk reduction is a difficult concept!

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T01:13:14+00:00

It cannot be argued that you understand statistics.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-27T01:10:16+00:00

I guarantee the vaccination rate among those dying for COVID (meaning controlling for age) is around 99%. In other words I would bet that taking the vaccine reduces the probability of death considerably for all age groups. This is obvious if you know statistics.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1283986/covid-19-vaccinations-in-england-by-gender-and-age/

80+ has 90%, 75-79 is 100% (probably 99.5% and rounded up or something). In fact the oldest age group with vaccination rate lower than 9 in 10 is 45-49.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-20T20:54:53+00:00

To be fair, that doesn't mean it doesn't work. It was Paul Samuelson who first referred to money as a "social contrivance". Economics is more complicated than "LOL ur money is fake, I'll stick to my cabin off the grid THANK YOU". Some things in economics are very counter-intuitive. A good example is a policy of deposit insurance which guarantees against bank runs but also prevents bank runs since back runs are caused by the fear that one will not be able to access one's deposits. So deposit insurance is a policy renders itself unnecessary and yet is therefore good. Very counter-intuitive. The "illusion" of the monetary system is just as counter-intuitive because it's a mass hallucination which renders itself real.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-10T06:05:58+00:00

Being a PhD doesn't mean he is free of schizophrenia.

also: the guy is a fraudster

https://www.google.com/search?q=patrick+gunnels&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA942CA942&sxsrf=APq-WBtwK1zr7wG6QEdjK2LVXzyFl0M_1Q:1649571087736&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjAkt2V64j3AhVAjIkEHYiTBecQ_AUoAXoECAEQAw&biw=1536&bih=754&dpr=1.25

this is him. No PhD.

Guy is nuts. Check the filter out lol.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCsFo-CkRMQ

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-10T04:00:32+00:00

Conspiracy time: what if oil was hidden under the earth by aliens because of how dangerous it was to their society

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-10T00:48:52+00:00

Ginzburg stated that, on the theoretical level, if a Jew requires a liver transplant to survive, it would be permissible to seize a Gentile and take their liver forcefully.

What if I told you not all Jews believe that stuff?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-10T00:46:41+00:00

Can I go alone and not drink?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-09T18:00:31+00:00

It is easier to be religious than not. Firstly, to quote Bukowski, those who preach god need god. Which is to say that the people who believe god are those who find it comforting. This is similar to how people who use whores find it comforting. Secondly, it comes with political, business, and social advantages. Which is to say, that saying "I love god and god loves me" on live television, meeting business partners at church, and getting a lot of social credit for putting $5 in the tithe basket every week are easily interpreted as acts of selfishness.

Religion is not a selfless act. I pray on a mountain, in a field, or by a stream, to a non-religious god called nature. I can't say I believe people who pray in front of others are praying at all. I understand the value of the social aspect, but I despise the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and self-righteousness of organized religion.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-09T17:54:08+00:00

If only there were secular churches. Like built around fishing or something.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-09T05:01:26+00:00

jeez the schizophrenia runs deep

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-09T04:56:41+00:00

Anti-maskers

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-07T15:02:41+00:00

That is easily done

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-07T14:58:51+00:00

Except I do understand them. Here is a video from a career statistician explaining exactly how Simpson's paradox applies to this exact problem:

https://youtu.be/XVRfBhy5vGI

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-07T04:56:39+00:00

That shows up possibly 20 comments below the that comment. A dislike score would show up right beside the comment.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-07T04:35:01+00:00

Exactly. No reputable news source should be relying on content hosted somewhere else. Take a screenshot of the tweet, and host it yourself. You hardly own data, in the first place, why would you expect to own data hosted at someone else's expense?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T19:22:51+00:00

How can you know something false? No, you already believe it. You clearly have no trouble believing things that are wrong.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T18:41:58+00:00

You could start with displaying an understanding of the Simpson's paradox and how it applies to this thread.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T15:38:51+00:00

Yall got banned from reddit for being stupid eh?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T15:35:35+00:00

I did.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T05:15:49+00:00

Exactly

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T02:51:47+00:00

The rich and powerful are insanely insulated from reality. Also, to become rich and powerful 99% of the time you have to be a terrible person.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T00:43:29+00:00

"Changing the topic"

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T00:31:55+00:00

Oof someone doesn't know the difference between correlation and causation. Vaccinated people dying less from car accidents could have totally reasonable explanations. For example, maybe people who get vaccines are smarter than people who don't. Therefore they would be more likely to drive smarter too. Therefore they would be less likely to die.

A correlation between between COVID vaccines and car deaths is not evidence of data manipulation. It also isn't evidence that the vaccine causes anything related to driving. It's just a correlation. There are many other possible causal explanations.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-06T00:18:50+00:00

Then people have to actually come across your comment. Sometimes there's a stupid comment with 20 stupid replies. So if I comment calling it out, I show up among the 20 stupid replies. At least if there's a "disagree" score, that would show up right above the comment.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T23:12:01+00:00

Who is bombing the shit out of who right now? You live in a fantasy land.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T21:07:41+00:00

Because they are Ukrainian citizens in a way that Palestinians are not Israeli citizens so your metaphor falls pretty flat. Arab Israelis exist, are citizens, and do just fine with (and many even prefer) the Jewish government.

Russian speaking Ukrainians are to Ukrainians as Arab Israelis are to Israelis. Not Palestinians are to Israelis. Heck, Zelensky is a Russian speaking Ukrainian.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T21:04:42+00:00

That applies to military operations but the poisoning appears to be the work of patriotic Ukrainian babushkas (or the Ukrainian equivalent).

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:45:57+00:00

Do you mean Russian speaking Ukrainians, or citizens of Russia?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:42:44+00:00

Does neutral Ukraine actually mean neutral or does it mean Russian puppet? Why would a country wish to join NATO and have a strong military hmmm? Could it be because they border a country led by a sociopath who has a history of invading countries, killing the civilians and installing puppet regimes?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:39:45+00:00

Sincerely,

someone not willing to do the slightest thing to save lives by preventing virus spread by wearing a mask over their mouth.

- OP, probably

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:36:47+00:00

How would it be better without these efforts? Please explain. What countries have less covid restrictions and fewer COVID deaths? From what I can see, countries with more restrictions, like strict regional lockdowns with strict local travel restrictions like New Zealand have a considerably lower death rate than the USA.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:35:29+00:00

At least we have brains and can understand statistics.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:34:53+00:00

Lmao

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T20:34:39+00:00

Keep telling yourself that

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T17:25:16+00:00

Nice to know I'm not alone!

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T17:05:45+00:00

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T16:36:43+00:00

A virus which kills more people than the flu despite significant efforts at curtailing spread, like masking and lockdowns is cause for mass hysteria. If you're capable of counterfactual thinking, then imagine how much worse it would have been without those efforts.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T16:34:29+00:00

Ah yes anecdotal evidence, the gold standard! I totally believe you now!

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T14:51:29+00:00

Don't move the goalposts. You said Pfizer's own data showed it. Im asking for you to show me where Pfizer's own data showed it. You reference a primary text, and I want to see the primary text.

Regardless, I took the time to go through that presentation but it isn't a primary text.

They say:

The claim was that the inoculations were safe and showed 95% efficacy

7 days after the 2nd dose. But that 95% was actually Relative Risk

Reduction. Absolute Risk Reduction was only 0.84%.

Relative Risk Reduction is the relevant statistic. For a virus with exponential growth and over long time periods, the absolute risk reduction in a two month period is meaningless. If you double the time period you more than double the absolute number of cases. Relative risk reduction tells you how much it reduces the exponential growth rate. Absolute risk reduction tells you absolutely nothing about how the virus grows. 95% relative reduction means 100 cases becomes 5 or 200 becomes 10. Absolute doesn't tell you anything as scale and time period changes.

As for the increased risk of averse effects..

Yeah one group is receiving saline and has a probability to get covid while the other group is guaranteed to get a vaccine and possibly get COVID.

The vaccine reduces your risks if you catch COVID. But no shit you're gonna have more averse effects from a vaccine than saline.

Point is the vaccine is like getting poked in the arm and it kinda hurts, but it helps if in the future you get slapped in the face. The slap in the face is getting COVID and it isn't guaranteed. If you want to do a fair comparison, you should look at the difference between "COVID and Vaccine" and "COVID and no vaccine" group.

I'm not saying the vaccine carries no risk of adverse effects. Im saying I'm not surprised it was more risky than the saline but that isn't how you're interpreting it. Point is, if everyone were vaccinated, the elderly would die less and the exponential growth rate of spread of the virus would be lower which would save even more lives.

Pretty much the only reason not to get vaccinated is if you genuinely believe you will never catch COVID. If you believe you will catch COVID your risks are lower at all age groups if you are vaccinated.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T14:49:58+00:00

Observational data can not be interpreted as causative.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T04:55:12+00:00

And that's just psychology.

Psychology is the field I'd most expect that.

Anyway, sure regression to the mean doesn't always occur, but I was just pointing out the importance of treatment and control.

My point is just that correlation means absolutely nothing. You can have positive correlations where there is negative causation, for example vaccination and hospitalization positively correlate although the correlation is reversed when you control for age and the vaccines do work. You can have no correlation where there is causation, for example the correlation between temperature in a home and air conditioning/heating energy consumption is zero because the thermostat keeps the house temperature constant.* And you can have positive correlation where there is correlation, but again it means nothing to me. Sure, there's a positive correlation between temperature and sunscreen sales, but you still can't use that correlation to argue for causation.

*This is a famous example known as Milton Friedman's Thermostat.

https://worthwhile.typepad.com/worthwhile_canadian_initi/2010/12/milton-friedmans-thermostat.html#:~:text=If%20a%20house%20has%20a,the%20inside%20temperature%20(P).

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T04:32:03+00:00

You have to control vaccination rates and hospitalization rates by age. Younger people are less vaccinated and at lower risk of vaccines which gives a positive correlation between vaccination and hospitalization, even though for every age, the risk of COVID hospitalization is lower if you are vaccinated.

We get this (sorry for the bad formatting):

Hospital count  Hospital %  Vaccine Rate %  # cases unvaxed if unvaxed did nothing

< 12 9 10.20% 35% 5.85
12 to 19 0 0% 88% 0
20 to 39 1 1.10% 90% 0.1
40 to 59 7 8.00% 95% 0.35
60 to 79 41 46.60% 100% 0
80 and over 30 34.10% 100% 0

So if the vaccine did nothing we'd expect 6.3 unvaccinated cases in total. Instead there is 17. So there are more unvaccinated people hospitalized than we would statistically expect. The fact that there would be any elderly unvaccinated in the hospital shows how much it matters. <1% of the elderly are unvaccinated there and yet I wouldn't be surprised if they made up some of the elderly hospitalized people.

Data sources:

https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/health-and-wellness/covid-19-testing-and-case-data

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/ (PEI data)

Age prop_atleast1dose

0–4 0
05–11 70.07
12–17 88.87
18–29 82.31
30–39 98
40–49 94.51
50–59 96.46
60–69 >=99
70–79 >=99
80+ >=99

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:57:18+00:00

I'm just saying that all data is biased, and I'm much happier looking at interpretable controlled experiments even if they are possibly biased than unbiased but uninterpretable observational studies. Observational studies do not attempt to prove causation. Any causative interpretation of observational data is worth absolutely nothing.

Famous example is diet studies, where a more convincing explanation when they look at poor vegan countries for why they get less heart disease is they are less diagnosed and die earlier before they die from heart attacks.

If you want anything like causation you need a treatment and a control. Not even treatment is enough. Give a bunch of depressed kids apples and in a year they'll on average have improvements. Why? Because of regression to the mean. The average child isn't depressed. Take a bunch of non-average children and over time they regress back to the average. So if you want to see if apples do anything, you take apple pills and sugar pills don't tell them who got what, and then try to put equally depressed people into the treatment and control and a year later hope that the apple pills did better than the sugar pill. You'll probably still find the sugar pill did something, but you don't care because that's just regression to the mean.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:46:19+00:00

Ah yes. That's why I listen to Alex Jones and buy his supplements to be manly and everything! /s

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:33:49+00:00

So once you consider these further additional points, it probably is not only doing nothing, but might very well be causing worse outcomes on average.

Pfizer's own data show this.

Can you link a source of Pfizer's own data and quote the relevant section?

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:30:44+00:00

That said, these data (and similar numbers from Scotland before they started screwing around with them) make it crystal clear that these vaccines do not prevent people from getting covid. They seem to marginally lower the probability of illness, hospitalization and death for a limited time (seemingly ~3 months), but that is not remotely the same thing as prevention. A true vaccine stops spread of a disease within the vaccinated population.

Experimental data shows a reduction in COVID spread. Observational data does not. Which one should you trust? Experimental data. Observational data simply shows correlations. If vaccinated people start to be more social due to the lower risk of hospitalization and death at every age group, then that can increase spread, but it still wouldn't be right to say "vaccines don't reduce spread". It would be right to say "people become more social after they take a vaccine and being more social causes an increase in COVID spread and this leads to a positive correlation between vaccines and spread but not causation".

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:26:56+00:00

Lmao no, it is simpson's paradox. Here is a 3 minute video for you if you have the attention span for it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVRfBhy5vGI

The younger people are less vaccinated but also at a lower risk than the elderly who are more vaccinated. Therefore you get a positive correlation between "vaccine" and "hospitalization" even though controlling for age, it is obvious that vaccines reduce hospitalization risk for every age group. In short, you and every commenter who agrees with you is confusing correlation with causation, which is a like a grade 5 mistake.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-05T03:20:16+00:00

The vaccination rate for elderly is closer to 90% and the elderly are those hospitalized. So it is more like, 10% of elderly are unvaxed. 20% of people hospitalized are unvaxed elderly. Therefore the vaccine cuts hospitalization for elderly in half.

Source:

https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/vaccination-coverage/

https://www.princeedwardisland.ca/en/information/health-and-wellness/covid-19-testing-and-case-data

Age distribution of hospitalized cases1 (years)

60 to 79 46.6%
80 and over 34.1%

or around 80% elderly.

Vaccination rates (1,2,3,4 doses)

60 to 69 95.03% (4,600,009) 1.50% (72,748) 93.53% (4,527,261) 74.94% (3,627,473)
70 to 79 97.51% (3,056,385) 1.24% (38,810) 96.27% (3,017,575) 83.34% (2,612,158)
80 and older 98.67% (1,691,174) 1.62% (27,798) 97.05% (1,663,376) 84.84% (1,454,077)

So actually, it is closer to a 75% reduction in hospitalization of elderly. Since <5% of elderly are unvaxed and 20% of hospitalizations are elderly unvaxed.

Anyway, this phenomenon is known as Simpson's Paradox, and here's a video on it (specifically using vaccine stats as an example): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVRfBhy5vGI

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-04T00:03:42+00:00

Imagine cheating at an April Fool's Joke

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-03T19:27:38+00:00

If that's true

Hint: it isn't.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-03T19:10:45+00:00

Hint: it isn't.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-03T19:04:17+00:00

This is hilarious! OMG yall believe this? Yeesh

edit: Yall can download and read the original Pfizer doc fyi. The original has literally zero mention of shedding or anything like that. And every adverse effect listed in the conspiritard article is in the actual doc, but in the actual doc they are just listing what would be considered a serious adverse effect (SAE) if it were to occur. Literally zero mention of how often they occur or whatever, because it's just a study protocol document. A study protocol document just says "here is what we are doing, and here are the bad stuff we are looking out for". There is zero, zilch, nada on the outcomes of the study, shedding, or anything else the conspiritard article claimed. If you believe this then I got a bridge to sell you.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-03T02:16:06+00:00

I have no doubt there are evil Zionists, just like there exist good and bad people belonging to any group. But to claim that all Zionists are evil is patently hateful since it pretty much amounts to saying you believe in the extermination of the Jews in Israel. To quote Bob Dylan,

Well, the neighborhood bully, he's just one man
His enemies say he's on their land
They got him outnumbered about a million to one
He got no place to escape to, no place to run
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully he just lives to survive
He's criticized and condemned for being alive
He's not supposed to fight back, he's supposed to have thick skin
He's supposed to lay down and die when his door is kicked in
He's the neighborhood bully.
The neighborhood bully been driven out of every land
He's wandered the earth an exiled man
Seen his family scattered, his people hounded and torn
He's always on trial for just being born
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he knocked out a lynch mob, he was criticized
Old women condemned him, said he should apologize
Then he destroyed a bomb factory, nobody was glad
The bombs were meant for him. He was supposed to feel bad
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, the chances are against it, and the odds are slim
That he'll live by the rules that the world makes for him
'Cause there's a noose at his neck and a gun at his back
And a license to kill him is given out to every maniac
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he got no allies to really speak of
What he gets he must pay for, he don't get it out of love
He buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied
But no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side
He's the neighborhood bully.
Well, he's surrounded by pacifists who all want peace
They pray for it nightly that the bloodshed must cease
Now, they wouldn't hurt a fly. To hurt one they would weep
They lay and they wait for this bully to fall asleep
He's the neighborhood bully.
Every empire that's enslaved him is gone
Egypt and Rome, even the great Babylon
He's made a garden of paradise in the desert sand
In bed with nobody, under no one's command
He's the neighborhood bully.
Now his holiest books have been trampled upon
No contract that he signed was worth that what it was written on
He took the crumbs of the world and he turned it into wealth
Took sickness and disease and he turned it into health
He's the neighborhood bully.
What's anybody indebted to him for?
Nothing, they say. He just likes to cause war
Pride and prejudice and superstition indeed
They wait for this bully like a dog waits for feed
He's the neighborhood bully.
What has he done to wear so many scars?
Does he change the course of rivers? Does he pollute the moon and stars?
Neighborhood bully, standing on the hill
Running out the clock, time standing still
Neighborhood bully.

edit: Muslims, Christians, Jews, and Atheists all live in harmony in Israel currently. Also Land Value Tax would solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

HenryGeorgeOfficial · 2022-04-03T02:08:56+00:00

Most celebrities/politicians eventually believes their success, which even if it required an insane amount of hard work, contained no element of luck. So eventually they believe they are right on pretty much anything. Worse, they tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them.

HenryGeorgeOfficial