A Quote by Robert Frost

Thinking is not to agree or disagree. That's voting. — © Robert Frost
Thinking is not to agree or disagree. That's voting.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, I would say.
I think that's part of the creative process to disagree about certain ideas. But we also agree just as much as we disagree, in the band, I would say.
If, two people have good minds and they're looking at problems, if they agree all the time it means one of them is not thinking. If they disagree all the time, it means one of them is not thinking. They're just allowing their political position to dictate their position on an issue. And I think that's unhealthy. And the public knows better.
If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with
Remember something, if you will, about voting: Voting is not a horse race, you're not going there thinking "Gee, I gotta pick the winner so I can brag to my friends 'Oh, I picked so-and-so and he or she won'". Voting is voting your heart and voting your conscience and when you've done that, don't ever, EVER let a Democrat or Republican tell you that you've wasted your vote because the fact is, if you DON'T vote your heart and conscience then you HAVE wasted your vote.
Friends don't always agree on things. I think you can disagree without being venomous about it. You don't stop being friends just because you disagree.
You're not just voting for an individual, in my judgment, you're voting for an agenda. You're voting for a platform. You're voting for a political philosophy.
The right to agree with others is not a problem in any society; it is the right to disagree that is crucial. It is the institution of private property that protects and implements the right to disagree - and thus keeps the road open to man's most valuable attribute: the creative mind.
For a lot of readers these days, a book is something you have to agree or disagree with. But you can't agree with a novel. For my generation, it was assumed that a book is a dramatic thing, that the eye of the book is not telling you what to think.
Where I agree with the president, I'll state that I agree with the president. Where I disagree, I'll state that I disagree.
We can agree to disagree, but we don’t need to be disagreeable.
Economists agree about economics - and that's a science - and they disagree about economic policy because that's a value judgment... I've had profound disagreements on policy with the famous Milton Friedman. But, on economics, we agree.
You don't have to win every argument. Agree to disagree.
People who disagree on important issues don't agree on the facts.
I had one guy say, 'I watched your show and didn't agree with what you said.' And I'm like, 'It's a joke. How could you not agree? I can understand you saying it's not funny.' But it's like my going onstage and doing a knock-knock and somebody going, 'I disagree. There's no door here.'
At Silicon Valley, I'm extremely sympathetic to the revolutionary response. I not only agree with it emotionally. I agree with it practically. And the only thing I disagree with is, I don't think Donald Trump is that. Trump is blow it up for no good reason at all. You want to actually do revolution with a target, with an idea, with building a new system.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!