| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
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
|
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
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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! |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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? |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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! |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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 |
Being Anti-Intellectual
"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? |
Being Anti-Intellectual
|
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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? |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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? |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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? |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
Jim wrote:
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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:36:52 -0500, Jim wrote:
Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. That and the 'eternal-september' stuff. No one ever said he was too bright, except Donnie, and maybe the plum. Oh no, she was talking about herself. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:36:52 -0500, Jim wrote: Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. That and the 'eternal-september' stuff. No one ever said he was too bright, except Donnie, and maybe the plum. Oh no, she was talking about herself. From what I have seen here, the purpose of spoofing is to annoy other posters to the point where they filter your username and email addy, right? :) |
Being Anti-Intellectual
Harry 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. Sleepless in Seattle. Speaking gibberish again. jps's comment sounded very racist, why did he pick the two unrelated products that have a black person on the package? Blatant racism. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
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? i have enough "man love" to share. don't tell Harry, but when he is not here, i hang around the men's bathroom on the pier and pick up tourist. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
Jim wrote:
Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart for you turd blossoms. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
Harry wrote:
Jim wrote: Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart for you turd blossoms. That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah Nah |
Being Anti-Intellectual
Harry wrote:
Jim wrote: Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart for you turd blossoms. I am tired of all of this spoofing and you idiots who make me look like a maroon |
Being Anti-Intellectual
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, Jim wrote:
Harry wrote: Jim wrote: Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart for you turd blossoms. That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah Nah Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention. |
Being Anti-Intellectual
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 17:35:51 -0500, John H wrote:
On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:29:36 -0500, Jim wrote: Harry wrote: Jim wrote: Jim wrote: 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. This is too funny. the guy that's been crying about people spoofing him is getting into the act. Get rid of your apple if you want to fool anyone. Screw you. Nobody is going to get the upper hand on me. I'm too smart for you turd blossoms. That's becauuse I am Flajim and I will spoof whoever I want. Nah Nah Nah Nope, you're Harry and you're crying for attention. You are the one with no life except broke boats. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com