Log in

View Full Version : Who's smarter? - you decide



Chiak47
24th March 2003, 09:31
Who's Smarter?
by Cindy Osborne

The Hollywood group is at it again. Holding anti-war rallies, screaming
about the Bush Administration, running ads in major newspapers, defaming
the President and his Cabinet every chance they get, to
anyone and everyone who will listen. They publicly defile them and call
them names like "stupid," "morons," and "idiots." Jessica Lange
went so far as to tell a crowd in Spain that she hates President Bush
and is embarrassed to be an American.

So, just how ignorant are these people who are running the country?
Let's look at the biographies of these "stupid," "ignorant," "moronic"
leaders, and then at the celebrities who are castigating them:

President George W. Bush: Received a Bachelors Degree from Yale
University and an MBA from Harvard Business School. He served as an
F-102 pilot for the Texas Air National Guard. He began his career
in the oil and gas business in Midland in 1975 and worked in the energy
industry until 1986. He was elected Governor on November 8, 1994, with
53.5 percent of the vote. In a historic reelection victory, he
became the first Texas Governor to be elected to consecutive four-year
terms on November 3, 1998, winning 68.6 percent of the vote. In 1998
Governor Bush won 49 percent of the Hispanic vote, 27 percent
of the African-American vote, 27 percent of Democrats and 65 percent of
women. He won more Texas counties, 240 of 254, than any modern
Republican other that Richard Nixon in 1972 and is the first
Republican gubernatorial candidate to win the heavily Hispanic and
Democratic border counties of El Paso, Cameron and Hidalgo. (Someone
began circulating a false story about his I.Q. being lower than any
other President. If you believed it, you might want to go to
URBANLEGENDS.COM and see the truth.)

Vice President Dick Cheney earned a B.A. in 1965 and a M.A. in 1966,
both in political science. Two years later, he won an American Political
Science Association congressional fellowship. One of Vice
President Cheney's primary duties is to share with individuals, members
of Congress and foreign leaders, President Bush's vision to strengthen
our economy, secure our homeland and win the War on
Terrorism. In his official role as President of the Senate, Vice
President Cheney regularly goes to Capitol Hill to meet with Senators
and members of the House of Representatives to work on the
Administration's legislative goals. In his travels as Vice President, he
has seen first hand the great demands the war on terrorism is placing on
the men and women of our military, and he is proud of the
tremendous job they are doing for the United States of America.

Secretary of State Colin Powell was educated in the New York City public
schools, graduating from the City College of New York (CCNY), where he
earned a Bachelor's Degree in geology. He also participated in ROTC at
CCNY and received a commission as an Army second
lieutenant upon graduation in June 1958. His further academic
achievements include a Master of Business Administration Degree
from George Washington University. Secretary Powell is the recipient of
numerous U.S. and foreign military awards and decorations. Secretary
Powell's civilian awards include two Presidential Medals of
Freedom, the President's Citizens Medal, the Congressional Gold Medal,
the Secretary of State Distinguished Service Medal, and the Secretary of
Energy Distinguished Service Medal. Several schools and
other institutions have been named in his honor and he holds honorary
degrees from universities and colleges across the country.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: attended Princeton University on
Scholarship (AB, 1954) and served in the U.S. Navy (1954-57) as a Naval
aviator; Congressional Assistant to Rep. Robert Griffin
(R-MI), 1957-59; U.S. Representative, Illinois, 1962-69; Assistant to
the President, Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, Director
of the Cost of Living Council, 1969-74; U.S. Ambassador to
NATO, 1973-74; head of Presidential Transition Team, 1974; Assistant to
the President, Director of White House Office of Operations, White House
Chief of Staff, 1974-77; Secretary of Defense, 1975-77

Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was raised in a working class
family in veterans' public housing in Erie. He earned a scholarship to
Harvard, graduating with honors in 1967. After his first year
at The Dickinson School of Law, he was drafted into the U.S. Army, where
he served as an infantry staff sergeant in Vietnam, earning the Bronze
Star for Valor. After returning to Pennsylvania, he earned
his Law Degree and was in private practice before becoming Assistant
District Attorney in Erie County. He was elected to Congress in 1982. He
was the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran elected to the
U.S. House, and was overwhelmingly reelected six times.

National Security Advisor
Condoleezza Rice earned her Bachelor's Degree in Political Science,
Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her
Master's from the University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from
the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of Denver in

1981.
(Note: Rice enrolled at the University of Denver at the age of 15,
graduating at 19 with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science (Cum
Laude). She earned a Master's Degree at the University of Notre
Dame and a Doctorate from the University of Denver's Graduate School of
International Studies. Both of her advanced degrees are also in
Political Science.)

She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has
been awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in 1991, the
University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre Dame in 1995.
At Stanford, she has been a member of the Center for
International Security and Arms Control, a Senior Fellow of the
Institute for International Studies, and a Fellow (by courtesy) of the
Hoover Institution. Her books include Germany Unified and Europe
Transformed (1995) with Philip Zelikow, The Gorbachev Era (1986) with
Alexander Dallin, and Uncertain Allegiance: The Soviet Union and
the Czechoslovak Army (1984). She also has written numerous articles on
Soviet and East European foreign and defense policy, and has addressed
audiences in settings ranging from the U.S. Ambassador's
Residence in Moscow to the Commonwealth Club to the 1992 and 2000
Republican National Conventions. From 1989 through March 1991, the
period of German reunification and the final days of the Soviet
Union, she served in the Bush Administration as Director, and then
Senior Director, of Soviet and East European Affairs in the National
Security Council, and a Special Assistant to the President for National
Security Affairs. In 1986, while an international affairs fellow of the
Council on Foreign Relations, she served as Special Assistant to the
Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In 1997, she served on the
Federal Advisory Committee on Gender -- Integrated Training in the
Military. She was a member of the boards of directors for the Chevron
Corporation, the Charles Schwab Corporation, the William and
Flora Hewlett Foundation, the University of Notre Dame, the
International Advisory Council of J.P. Morgan and the San Francisco
Symphony Board of Governors. She was a Founding Board member of the
Center for a New Generation, an educational support fund for schools in
East Palo Alto and East Menlo Park, California and was Vice President of
the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula. In addition, her
past board service has encompassed such organizations as Transamerica
Corporation, Hewlett Packard, the Carnegie Corporation, Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, The Rand Corporation, the
National Council for Soviet and East European Studies, the Mid-Peninsula
Urban Coalition and KQED, public broadcasting for San Francisco. Born
November 14, 1954 in Birmingham, Alabama, she earned
her bachelor's degree in political science, cum laude and Phi Beta
Kappa, from the University of Denver in 1974; her Master's from the
University of Notre Dame in 1975; and her Ph.D. from the Graduate
School of International Studies at the University of Denver in 1981. She
is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and has been
awarded Honorary Doctorates from Morehouse College in
1991, the University of Alabama in 1994, and the University of Notre
Dame in 1995. She resides in Washington, D.C.

So who are these celebrities? What is their education? What is their
experience in affairs of State or in National Security? While I will
defend to the death their right to express their opinions, I think that
if they are going to call into question the intelligence of our leaders, we
should also have all the facts on their educations and background:

Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

While comparing the education and experience of these two groups, we
should also remember that President Bush and his cabinet are briefed
daily, even hourly, on the War on Terror and threats to our
security. They are privy to information gathered around the world
concerning the Middle East, the threats to America, the intentions of
terrorists and terrorist-supporting governments. They are in constant
communication with the CIA, the FBI, Interpol, NATO, The United Nations,
our own military, and that of our allies around the world. We cannot
simply believe that we have full knowledge of the threats
because we watch CNN!! We cannot believe that we are in any way as
informed as our leaders.

These celebrities have no intelligence-gathering agents, no fact-finding
groups, no insight into the minds of those who would destroy our
country. They only have a deep seated hatred for all things
Republican. By nature, and no one knows quite why, the Hollywood
elitists detest Conservative views and anything that supports or uplifts
the United States of America. The silence was deafening from the
Left when Bill Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical factory outside of
Khartoum, or when he attacked the Bosnian Serbs in 1995 and 1999. He
bombed Serbia itself to get Slobodan Milosevic out of Kosovo, and
not a single peace rally was held. When our Rangers were ambushed in
Somalia and 18 young American lives were lost, not a peep was heard from
Hollywood. Yet now, after our nation has been attacked
on its own soil, after 3,000 Americans were killed by freedom-hating
terrorists while going about their routine lives, they want to hold
rallies against the war. Why the change? Because an honest,
God-fearing Republican sits in the White House.

Another irony is that in 1987, when Ronald Reagan was in office, the
Hollywood group aligned themselves with disarmament groups like SANE,
FREEZE and PEACE ACTION, urging our own government
to disarm and freeze the manufacturing of any further nuclear weapons,
in order to promote world peace. It is curious that now, even after we
have heard all the evidence that Saddam Hussein has chemical,
biological and is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons, their is no
cry from this group for HIM to disarm. They believe we should leave
him alone in his quest for these weapons of mass destruction, even
though it is certain that these deadly weapons will eventually be used
against us in our own cities.

So why the hype out of Hollywood? Could these celebrities believe that
since they draw such astronomical salaries, they are entitled to also
determine the course of our Nation? That they can make viable
decisions concerning war and peace? Did Michael Moore have the backing
of the Nation when he recently thanked France, on our behalf, for being
a "good enough friend to tell us we were wrong"? I
know for certain he was not speaking for me. Does Sean Penn fancy
himself a Diplomat, in going to Iraq when we are just weeks away from
war? Does he believe that his High School Diploma gives him
the knowledge (and the right) to go to a country that is controlled by a
maniacal dictator, and speak on behalf of the American people? Or is it
the fact that he pulls in more money per year than the average
American worker will see in a lifetime? Does his bank account give him
clout?

The ultimate irony is that many of these celebrities have made a
shambles of their own lives, with drug abuse, alcoholism, numerous
marriages and divorces, scrapes with the law, publicized temper
tantrums, etc. How dare they pretend to know what is best for an entire
nation! What is even more bizarre is how many people in this country
will listen and accept their views, simply because they liked them in a
certain movie, or have fond memories of an old television sitcom!

It is time for us, as citizens of the United States, to educate
ourselves about the world around us. If future generations are going to
enjoy the freedoms that our forefathers bequeathed us, if they are ever
to know peace in their own country and their world, to live without fear of
terrorism striking in their own cities, we must assure that this nation
remains strong. We must make certain that those who would
destroy us are made aware of the severe consequences that will befall
them.

Yes, it is a wonderful dream to sit down with dictators and terrorists
and join hands, singing Cumbaya and talking of world peace. But it is
not real. We did not stop Adolf Hitler from taking over the entire
continent of Europe by simply talking to him. We sent our best and
brightest, with the strength and determination that this Country is
known for, and defeated the Nazi regime. President John F. Kennedy
did not stop the Soviet ships from unloading their nuclear missiles in
Cuba in 1962 with mere words. He stopped them with action, and threat of
immediate war if the ships did not turn around. We did not
end the Cold War with conferences. It ended with the strong belief of
President Ronald Reagan... PEACE through STRENGTH.

Chiak47
24th March 2003, 22:01
Why is this being avoided like a dirty commie?

Is it sad that you nasty dopehead red's turn to entertainers to analyze political movement's.AND whats real sad is YOU really hold onto what the say.LIKE IT FUCKING MATTERS.

Here I broke it down for some of you dumb ones.

Barbra Streisand: Completed high school
Career: Singing and acting

Cher: Dropped out of school in 9th grade.
Career: Singing and acting

Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton.
Career: Acting

Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year.
Career: Acting

Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting

Julia Roberts Completed high school
Career: Acting

Sean Penn Completed High school
Career: Acting

Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America
in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting

Ed Asner Completed High school
Career: Acting

George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting

Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan.
Career: Movie Director

Sarah Jessica Parker: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Jennifer Anniston: Completed High School
Career: Acting

Mike Farrell Completed High school
Career: Acting

Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College.
Career: Stand up comedienne

Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year.
Career: Acting

canikickit
24th March 2003, 23:23
Maybe it's being "avoided" because nobody gives a fuck.


Is it sad that you nasty dopehead red's turn to entertainers to analyze political movement's.AND whats real sad is YOU really hold onto what the say.LIKE IT FUCKING MATTERS.

That's total bullshit. We agree with what some of them say. If you want to generalise people, I saw Bill O'Reily had that guy with the beard from "the West Wing" on "The O'Reily Factor". Asking him about political issues. Disgraceful.

I'll break it down for you, the dumb one:

Barbra Streisand: I don't care.
Cher: I don't care.
Martin Sheen: I don't care.
Jessica Lange: I don't care.
Alec Baldwin:I don't care.
Julia Roberts:I don't care.
Sean Penn :I don't care.
Susan Sarandon :I don't care.
Ed Asner :I don't care.
George Clooney:I don't care.
Michael Moore :I don't care.
Sarah Jessica Parker:I don't care.
Jennifer Anniston: I don't care.
Mike Farrell :I don't care.
Janeane Garofelo:I don't care.
Larry Hagman: I don't care.


I notice none of the extranvagant biographies and qualifications you listed included mentions of history.

Xvall
24th March 2003, 23:29
Why is this being avoided like a dirty commie?

Communists do not avoid things; we confront them quite openly. Nonetheless; this is being avoided because you simply presented an article. We are not going to attempt to refute the argument in the article, as it wasn't posted by the actual author. That is her opinion, and like us, she is entitled to it.

I have a few Statistics of my own.

Get a load of this group of people.

* 29 have been accused of spousal abuse
* 7 have been arrested for fraud
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses
* 3 have been arrested for assault
* 71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit
* 14 have been arrested on drug related charges
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits
* In 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving

Know who they are? The people in Congress! Holy shit!

Chiak47
24th March 2003, 23:43
Last updated: 2 January 2000


http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/congress.htm

Origins: The 535 men and women (100 Senators and 435 Representatives) who comprise the United States Congress are the core of our democratic system -- the people we elect (and pay) to represent us to our federal government and make the laws that regulate our society. We therefore somewhat unrealistically expect them to be paragons of virtue, selfless public servants dedicated to the task of making our country a better place for everyone, into whose heads the very thought of wrongdoing never intrudes. Congressmen are mere human beings, however, and so some of them exhibit the same flawed behaviors as some of us: they lie, they steal, they cheat on their spouses, they put personal gain ahead of public service, they line their pockets at the expense of those whom they are supposed to serve, etc. None of this should be surprising to anyone but the most naive among us. What is surprising is that so many people willingly circulate the above-cited piece of cheap, inflammatory tripe expecting it to be taken seriously.

No names or dates are mentioned, of course, so trying to match individuals with the vague charges levelled in this text would be a fruitless task (especially since the composition of Congress changes at least every two years, and the piece is undated). In any case that effort would be pointless, for this article is nothing more than a cheap smear: no one in it is cited as actually having done something wrong, but merely of having been "arrested" or "accused," or being a "defendant," or having been "stopped." Isn't our system supposed to be based upon the presumption that a person is innocent until proved guilty?

One can be arrested without being convicted of a crime (or even being charged with one), so the mere mention of an arrest with no other detail is meaningless. And when did these alleged arrests of Congressmen occur? While the arrestees were serving in Congress? While they were running for office? Before they became politicians? When they were juveniles? Thirty-two arrests and no convictions should probably make us more concerned about problems with our law enforcement and legal systems than it should about the people who make up Congress.

The claims that numerous Congressmen have been "accused" of various wrongdoings is even more specious. "Accused"? By whom? Journalists? Jealous rivals? Bitter ex-spouses? Childhood enemies? Muckrakers? Gossip mongers? I suspect that every single member of Congress has been "accused" of something bad at one time or another. By what standards does an accusation become "serious" or "official" enough to merit inclusion in this list?

Even the entries that contain some marginal detail are too vague to be relevant. We're told than 117 Congressmen "have bankrupted at least two businesses." What does that mean? Were all 117 personally and solely responsible for driving thriving businesses into the ground, or were they merely nominal board members of companies that went belly up? Were these businesses large companies, or the equivalent of mom-and-pop shops run out of someone's home? More importantly, is failing at business in today's volatile business environment supposed to be considered a moral failure as well as an economic one? Is being a successful businessman a prerequisite for being a legislator, or is it a sign or moral turpitude that should automatically disqualify one from office?

21 Congressmen "are current defendants in lawsuits"? What kinds of lawsuits? What are the merits of these lawsuits? Are these Congressmen supposedly being sued for infractions such as breach of contract, or merely because some cranky neighbors don't like they way they painted their houses?

71 "have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a credit card"? Heck, a single late payment can ruin your credit report these days, assuming your spotless rating hasn't already been done in by completely erroneous information mistakenly placed on your record by a credit reporting agency. And despite common public perception, Congressmen incur some considerable financial obligations as part of their jobs without receiving tremendously large salaries in return, so if some of them had trouble making ends meets, that wouldn't make them much different than many of us.

84 Congressmen "were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity." Again, being "stopped" is in itself no indication of wrongdoing, and the Constitution (Article I, Section 6) gives Congressmen privilege against arrest while Congress is in session (in order to prevent others from using the power of law enforcement to intimidate them). Although protecting members of Congress against traffic tickets may not be exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind when then crafted Article I, how many of us would disdain a constitutional protection to avoid trouble with the law? Would any one of us, even if he were guilty of a crime, not challenge an unwarranted search of his home performed in violation of the Fourth Amendment? I doubt many of us would stand on niceties if we had "Get Out of Jail Free" cards we could play, either.

All that said, this list wasn't made up out of whole cloth. The information was taken from a series of articles that appeared in an on-line publication called Capitol Hill Blue (whose motto is "Because nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while Congress is in session . . .) in August 1999, and gained widespread currency when a brief summary (stripped of what little supporting evidence the articles had in the first place) was irresponsibly run in a syndicated weird news column with no clue as to where the reader might find the source material on which it was based.

What appears in the original Capitol Hill Blue articles doesn't exactly validate the list by any responsible journalistic standards. The series includes lengthy articles about four of Congress' worst offenders, a screed about how Congressmen have "a long tradition of corruption and ambivalence," and a heap of vague innuendo. We're told that "117 members of the House and Senate have run at least two businesses each that went bankrupt, often leaving business partners and creditors holding the bag," but no detail about who these members were, the nature of the businesses that failed, why the businesses failed, or who was left "holding the bag" (and for how much). We're informed that "seventy-one of them have credit reports so bad they can't get an American Express card," but we're provided with no details about whom or why. Have these people been kiting checks, did they absent-mindedly make a few late credit card payments, or were they innocent victims of credit reporting agency screw-ups? And since when is not qualifying for an American Express card the standard by which "bad credit" is judged? I probably couldn't qualify for an AmEx card because I don't have sufficient income. Does that mean I have "bad credit" unquestionably caused by personal fiscal irresponsibility?

Most everything found in the Capitol Hill Blue articles continues in this vein. "Twenty-nine members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse in either criminal or civil proceedings," it says. Well, at least we know the "accusations" were made in the context of court cases, but they remain nothing more than accusations nonetheless. Were any Congressmen actually convicted of spousal abuse, or did any of them have to pay civil damages because of their abusive behavior towards their spouses? You won't find out from Capitol Hill Blue. "Twenty-one are current defendants in various lawsuits, ranging from bad debts, disputes with business partners or other civil matters." Is this really supposed to have any significance in a society where people can and do sue at the drop of a hat, often for the most frivolous of reasons? How about telling us who was successfully sued, and why? That effort appears to be beyond the ability (or the inclination) of Capitol Hill Blue staff. Why ruin a good story with pesky facts, after all?

As we mentioned at the outset, members of Congress are human beings just like the rest of us, and thus they're subject to the same foibles as everyone else. This doesn't mean that we should meekly accept the wrongdoings of some of them as par for the course or turn a blind eye when they break the law, but neither does it mean they aren't entitled to the same considerations and protections as the rest of us -- including the right to be tried in a court of law rather than a court of public opinion. Many of our Congressional representatives are in fact dedicated, hard-working public servants, and tarring them all with the same brush of anonymous, vague accusation does no one any good.

"If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" the adage goes. Save your efforts for rooting out those who truly breach the public trust instead of wasting time and energy in smearing an institution and everyone who comprises it by passing this cheap bit of scandal-mongering netlore along.

Last updated: 2 January 2000

Chiak47
24th March 2003, 23:44
Next lie please...

Xvall
24th March 2003, 23:53
That was a really awsome article you copied and pasted; but I think you will learn very quickly that no one will take copied and pasted articles seriously as replies in a debate. You must speak from your own mind; not from conservatism.net or wherever the hell you get your news. In regards to you little article; of course we do not expect the people we elect to be virtuous gods. However, fraud, assault, and spousal abuse are most certainly not acceptable. Next lie? Everything that I stated was true. You have yet to disprove it. Until then, it is not a lie. I notice that if it were a iberal in congress that had done any of those things; you would be all over the place.

Chiak47
24th March 2003, 23:58
Why when someone already debated it and proved it was a farce.Again another moot point.

You act like you researched those fake points you so desire me to debate.Get over it.

The facts are the.It's fake and it's from 2000.It's like a old fake tit.I don't want to touch it.

Move on too the next fake.

Xvall
25th March 2003, 01:48
Why when someone already debated it and proved it was a farce.

No one debated it and proved it farce. You are the one who started this thread in the first place. All you did was post another article that you copied and pasted in an attempt to prove it farce. The article didn't even try to prove it farce! All it did was talk about how some senators or congressmen may have been charged with the allegations before they were elected into office. In that case; I suppose we shouldn't hold OJ Simpson's record against him if he decided to run for president. After all, it's all in the past right? I suppose we should do that with all the Nazi war criminals too!

The facts are the.It's fake and it's from 2000.It's like a old fake tit.I don't want to touch it.

You never proved this. I'm not trying to spark a debate. You copied and pasted an article; so I did the same.

(Edited by Drake Dracoli at 1:50 am on Mar. 25, 2003)

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 01:59
I started a thread about entertainers being morons.
Since many in other forums-Where I don't have a voice
Put them on pedistals.


Then You posted fake shit about US lawmakers from 2000.I simply posted a article from snopes-A org that try's to find truth behind urban myth's.And you still dance around the original issue.

The only reason I posted it is to dis-credit The mike Moore(lies) of the world.

Come on...

*thats your cue to post 1920 Bolshevik production quotas*

Another words your all over the board.

Mazdak
25th March 2003, 02:33
After an interesting debate of similar nature, I actually made a conservative say "facts are shit" online.

Beautiful.

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 02:35
Where did I say facts are shit?

Mazdak
25th March 2003, 02:37
Quote: from Chiak47 on 2:35 am on Mar. 25, 2003
facts are shit?

You jsut did.



I didnt mean you anyway, you buffoon.

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 02:39
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/ak2.gif

The drums of war are beating I am starting to feel the earth shake.

j
25th March 2003, 02:39
OK (yeah, I know, haven't been around lately); first of all, no one cares what the creditials of the hollywood elite are or what their opinion is.

Here are three strong anti-war voices from Massachusetts and thier credentials:

Noam Chomsky: PhD University of Penn.; Fellowship Harvard University; Professor & Linguistic Chair MIT

Ted Kennedy: BA Harvard; UVA Law; Senator

Barney Frank: PhD Harvard; Harvard Law; Senator

These are just three folks off the top of my head in my own state.

You need to realize that there are "educated" people who make terrible choices (Bush, Powell, etc.).

As for Michael Moore, do you know anything about him? He is the only one of Hollywood crowd I even listen to. Despite the lack of a college degree, he has been a highly successful journalist (editor Mother Jones), writer, and documentarian.

Instead of arguing who is smarter, we should argue, who is right!!!

j

Mazdak
25th March 2003, 02:43
I agree, however my intelligence cannot be called into the question so that type of debate was impossible in the first place. Hasnt this been who is right and who is wrong style debate the whole time?

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 03:07
Mike moore is full of shit.He wants my guns.fuck him and his overweight self.I mean come on you bleeding hearts have got to agree he could cut back on the food and feed thousands of skinnies in Africa.

Back to the point.I have to admit.I never seen anything Moore(lies) has done.I refuse.
I read countless reviews and even his own words.I came to the conclusion that he has no merit.

Anonymous
25th March 2003, 03:34
Ted Kennedy is a fucking murderer.

Mazdak
25th March 2003, 03:35
So is anyone who wants saddam dead dumbass. You want him to walk around a pole with his intestines attached to the pole so as to unravel them. I dont think you should be worrying too much about murder.

Disgustipated
25th March 2003, 15:33
Quote: from Chiak47 on 8:59 pm on Mar. 24, 2003
I started a thread about entertainers being morons.
Since many in other forums-Where I don't have a voice
Put them on pedistals.


Then You posted fake shit about US lawmakers from 2000.I simply posted a article from snopes-A org that try's to find truth behind urban myth's.And you still dance around the original issue.

The only reason I posted it is to dis-credit The mike Moore(lies) of the world.

Come on...

*thats your cue to post 1920 Bolshevik production quotas*

Another words your all over the board.



Entertainers are morons? Really. Hmmm...Julia Roberts is making 20 million or so per movie...what do you make? Seems pretty smart to me. Huge money for not a lot of effort.

George Bush earned and education.....laughable. The old boy network took good care of him. He's earned nothing. Take a look sometime at his "successful" buisnesses. Hell...he wasn't even successfully elected. They had to have the Supreme Court decide.

Pete
25th March 2003, 15:40
Back to the point.I have to admit.I never seen anything Moore(lies) has done.I refuse.
I read countless reviews and even his own words.I came to the conclusion that he has no merit.

Haven't you ever been told don't judge a book by its cover? You have not read anything he has written, or watched anything he has filmed, but he has no merit. Smooth move exlax!

kelvin90701
25th March 2003, 17:02
To disprove the orginal thesis using education as a measure of stupidity. You have to prove that indeed actors are more educated and not stupid compared to GW and his cabinet.

Or you have to prove that acting is a better measure of intelligence.

Invader Zim
25th March 2003, 20:47
Quote: from Mazdak on 3:35 am on Mar. 25, 2003
So is anyone who wants saddam dead dumbass. You want him to walk around a pole with his intestines attached to the pole so as to unravel them. I dont think you should be worrying too much about murder.


LOL your posts get funnier all the time.

Thats nearly as dumb as when you said the Saddam Hussains a martyr even though hes not dead yet...

I support the war does that make me a murderer? I mean i have not killed any one. (yet)

canikickit
25th March 2003, 21:10
To disprove the orginal thesis using education as a measure of stupidity. You have to prove that indeed actors are more educated and not stupid compared to GW and his cabinet.

Or you have to prove that acting is a better measure of intelligence.

Why don't you try to say that a little more clearly. it doesn't make sense.

Education is not a measure of intelligence. It's not how much you know but how you use what you know.


Nobody cares how educated those actors and celebrities are. Do you disagree with someone on the basis of what qualifications they have recieved at third level?

This thread is stupid. That original article was stupid.

Chiak47
25th March 2003, 21:29
You bleeding hearts ran off the road of reality.

OK here is what the article was stating in a nutshell.
GW and his close cabinet have the inside to whats going on.They have the education to respond at a moments notice with just cause.

The entertainers have nothing.In a world that is 6 billion strong they(entertainers) mearly have a couple million dollars each for a product that serves no real purpose-eye candy.

They don't work.I have more respect for the man who picks up my garbage at 5:00 am.I would trust his feelings more than some over paid drama queen.

I can honestly say they have none of my money.

Xvall
25th March 2003, 21:31
I support the war does that make me a murderer?

No. It makes you an idiot. I am not wrong in saying that. Supporting the war does not mean that you want Saddam Hussein removed from power; it does not mean that you want an American victory in Iraq. When you say you support a war you are declaring that you like the concept of war in general. Even dumber; many people will support wars, and at the same time refuse to take any part in it. Not even that extra military tax that everyone is going to be charged with soon enough.

kelvin90701
26th March 2003, 05:41
Quote: from canikickit on 9:10 pm on Mar. 25, 2003


This thread is stupid. That original article was stupid.


This is very important, because people without any real rigorous training in public policy or international politcs are trying to influence decisions they really do not understand.

Would you believe GW Bush would be a qualified teacher in singing and dancing? Then is Sean Penn a qualified diplomat?

(Edited by kelvin90701 at 5:42 am on Mar. 26, 2003)

Chiak47
26th March 2003, 05:49
Kelvin-The leftests run too the defence of the entertainers when they say something stupid in attempt to further the cause but they stray away when confronted about it.

Same with commie china-they run to the word commie with thier friends but when confronted about it they back down.

Weasels.

kelvin90701
26th March 2003, 05:57
Quote: from canikickit on 9:10 pm on Mar. 25, 2003

To disprove the orginal thesis using education as a measure of stupidity. You have to prove that indeed actors are more educated and not stupid compared to GW and his cabinet.

Or you have to prove that acting is a better measure of intelligence.

Why don't you try to say that a little more clearly. it doesn't make sense.




OK! The statement, Actors are stupid because of lack of education can be disproved in two ways.

1) You prove that actors have more education.

or

2) Acting increases intelligence more than an Ivy League MBA program.