Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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?

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

On 05/01/2010 6:31 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.

There are two types of intellectuals.

There are the academic idealists who get so educated they forget how to
tie their shoes. I believe this is your educted fool. Ego driven,
thinking they are elite while actually being useless or worse,
destructive to others around them.

You want the intellectual from the schools of hard knocks, ground in
reality and accomplishments of real value. But intellectual enough to
grow. Not a sociopath and has values beyond power and greed. Actually
knows the meaning of honor but also ground well enough to knwo when to
kick ass and not bend over like Obama did with GM.

Trouble is north americans have been promoting sociopaths and academics
too long and are now right out of touch in the executive and in politics.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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?

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

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.

You forget that Harry has met every president since FDR except GHWB and
BHO. He's got the autographs to prove it.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

Jim wrote:
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.

You forget that Harry has met every president since FDR except GHWB and
BHO. He's got the autographs to prove it.


How many cucumbers a week does your wife go through because of
your...flaccidity?

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

BAR wrote:
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?

I see someone here has taken on multiple personalities.

The article seems to have value to Froggy. He is using it as a tool to
irritate Harry, smart as a dolphin, Krause.

Being Anti-Intellectual
 

Jim wrote:
BAR wrote:
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?

I see someone here has taken on multiple personalities.

The article seems to have value to Froggy. He is using it as a tool to
irritate Harry, smart as a dolphin, Krause.

Please. You right-wing turdmeisters don't irritate me. Your utter
stupidity and lack of concern for your fellow man and your planet
provide me with endless seconds of laughter.