On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:31:52 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool".

yeah. let's let all the chinese and indians get the PhD's and let joe
the plumber run the US

see how that works out, m'kay?

On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:31:52 -0800 (PST), Frogwatch
wrote:

David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.

You missed your opportunity in Cambodia.

You could have taken part in dispatching all the doctors, lawyers,
academics and all manner of professional.

Maybe you should try living in an even more remote location than you
are already. Say Bum****, Montana?

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.

I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I can
recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:33:24 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 05/01/2010 6:36 PM, Harry wrote:
Frogwatch wrote:
The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education.

Who the hell in a position of leadership would admit to knowing a loon
like you?

Not something you will have to worry about either way.

Well, that certainly straightened that out. Made it completely clear,
uh huh.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I can
recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the club.
Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.

jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I can
recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

Sleepless in Seattle. Speaking gibberish again.

--
If it's not posted with a mac, it's the real deal.

Don White wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans
who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart
could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I
can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the club.
Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.
Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you and
harry, do you?

Jim wrote:
Don White wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses
Americans who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for
"educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of
the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart
could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best
leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by
definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most
"intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I
can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the
club. Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.
Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you and
harry, do you?

Wouldn't be me, though. I can't come at all.

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:35:22 -0500, Jim wrote:

Don White wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans
who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart
could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I
can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.

I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.

You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the club.
Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.
Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you and
harry, do you?

If I thought there was an ounce of integrity in jps, I'd have that
picture posted in a heartbeat. I guess the big question for jps is
whether he wants a frontal or rear end exposure.

John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 09:35:22 -0500, Jim wrote:

Don White wrote:
jps wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 14:32:41 -0500, Harry
wrote:

Loogypicker wrote:
On Jan 6, 8:59 am, John H wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:50:21 -0800 (PST), Loogypicker





wrote:
On Jan 5, 8:31 pm, Frogwatch wrote:
David Brooks had a column in which he basically accuses Americans
who
disagree with Obama of being anti-intellectual. GUILTY AS
CHARGED, I
plead. Yes, I am very much against "intellectuals" running things
because much of the time "intellectual" is a psuedonym for "educated
fool". The reality is that being academically educated has
nothing to
do with being able to competently run anything, in fact, most of the
time it is an impediment. The best leaders I have known rarely had
much education. I may be well educated but I would never expect
anyone to expect me to lead, it simply is not within me to lead.
When you get to know somebody who is brilliant but a failure it is
exasperating because it is difficult to see how someone so smart
could
so often fail, yet smart failures are very common. The best leaders
never flaunt their educations because they want their followers to
identify with them, thus Brook's "educated class" is by definition a
set of poor leaders.
So, YES, I am anti-intellectual because I see most "intellectualism"
as being the mark of a failure.
So what you're saying is that you'll disagree with Obama about
anything and everything, even before you know what it is? Yep,
everything Obama bad, everything Republican good. Thanks for proving
my point!
Reading problem? I don't see the words 'Obama', 'Republican', 'good',
or 'bad' anywhere in the post above yours. Do you?

You've done NOTHING here but spread political
bull****, lies, and distortions for months.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
**** off, asshole. I'm done with your bull****. You've completely gone
haywire and can't even think straight.
I suggest you drive up to herring's house and straighten him out. I
can recommend a couple of good restaurants in his immediate area.
I'd pay $1000 for a picture of Herring covered in Aunt Jemima syrup
and Uncle Ben's rice.
You sound as kinky as Harry and myself. nice to see you join the club.
Next time we meet in Halifax, maybe you can "join' us.
Are you sure you want that. You don't want anyone coming between you and
harry, do you?

If I thought there was an ounce of integrity in jps, I'd have that
picture posted in a heartbeat. I guess the big question for jps is
whether he wants a frontal or rear end exposure.


There's no need to think. I haven't for years.