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!

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.

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.

Knowledge and wisdom are entirely different. You can rarely get wisdom
from a book. Useful knowledge and academic knowledge are also
different things and seem to have poor corellation.

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.

I'd be happy to applaud Obama if he did something right. Wouldn't you,
John?

On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:33:20 -0500, Jim wrote:

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.

I'd be happy to applaud Obama if he did something right. Wouldn't you,
John?

There's no 'wouldn't' about it. Every time he does something right, I
applaud him!

In article ,
says...

In article 5a6b5e97-d639-4994-8e9e-1531913b25d2
@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com, says...

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.

What value does David Brooks, the pet pseudo Republican/conserative for
the New York Times, provide to anyone?

He is the New York Lies version of "balance" in reporting... Gee, wonder
why they are looking for a bailout. snerk

"Don White" wrote in message
...
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?

Hey Harry Bud,
i can't remember, who in a position of leadership would admit to knowing
you and me?

If you don't give me the answer, how in the world am i suppossed to knew


Looney...do you ship your special crop international?

In article ,
says...

"Don White" wrote in message
...
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?

Hey Harry Bud,
i can't remember, who in a position of leadership would admit to knowing
you and me?

If you don't give me the answer, how in the world am i suppossed to knew


Looney...do you ship your special crop international?

Wrong again, dip****! But it is fun watching you spin like a drunken
monkey trying to figure it out!

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.

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.