(Note the mention of him being in the bottom 20% of his freshman class at Yale)
Anyway, the last thing I am doing is defending those celebrities. As far as I'm concerned, even as someone highly involved in the arts, they don't exist.
And it takes a pretty incapable person to fail at business even with numerous bailouts and criminal activity. He can't win even when he breaks the rules!
check Gore's record and see how much better it is...
After reading the article I feel it puts things into perspective a bit.
This was your assertion. You gave it credit by asserting it "puts things into perspective", when in fact it is bent by subtle wording:
Quote:
quite a speel on the adminstration but short little snippets on the accomplishments of the actors.
essentially an improper appeal to authority on the issue of
Quote:
"Moral Clarity"
being that
Quote:
Quality ethical concerns can be held by any semi-educated person
I'm not in the business of quoting myself all the time so if you would either read more carefully or contruct some actual questions, it may speed up the argument.
So did NoahJ and trumptman get the original joke or not?
I'm confused.
At first I thought NoahJ was playing along but then he complained about flagrant grammatical errors in a manner so serious. Surely no American could sustain that tone while being ironic.
So did NoahJ and trumptman get the original joke or not?
I'm confused.
At first I thought NoahJ was playing along but then he complained about flagrant grammatical errors in a manner so serious. Surely no American could sustain that tone while being ironic.
Does everyone else know what's going on?
It's all too ironical for me.
I was playing along. However, spelling police irritate me to no end. Especially on a internet forum.
This was your assertion. You gave it credit by asserting it "puts things into perspective", when in fact it is bent by subtle wording:
essentially an improper appeal to authority on the issue of
being that
I'm not in the business of quoting myself all the time so if you would either read more carefully or contruct some actual questions, it may speed up the argument.
You are still failing to make a poiint that I wish to respond to. It appears that youare saying that education does not equal morality. Correct? To which I would say, true. And?
The article takes issue with the actors' position:
Quote:
They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and_ "idiots".
and it attempts to refute that position with academic credentials to the contrary. However, I doubt that the actors are taking issue with the Bush administration's academic prowess. In which case, despite a university education, Bush may be lacking in the practical wisdom to choose the proper course of action in a given situation. Perhaps, despite having taken classes in ethics, he doesn't always see the point in acting ethically. In either case, academic credentials or the lack thereof wouldn't necessarily refute the labels doled out by some actors.
To further the point that the article's objection is irrelevant, why not replace actors with academics who also publicly defile the Bush administration? Noam Chomsky would look nice, but I'm sure you wouldn't be so quick to trust him.
The article takes issue with the actors' position:
and it attempts to refute that position with academic credentials to the contrary. However, I doubt that the actors are taking issue with the Bush administration's academic prowess. In which case, despite a university education, Bush may be lacking in the practical wisdom to choose the proper course of action in a given situation. Perhaps, despite having taken classes in ethics, he doesn't always see the point in acting ethically. In either case, academic credentials or the lack thereof wouldn't necessarily refute the labels doled out by some actors.
To further the point that the article's objection is irrelevant, why not replace actors with academics who also publicly defile the Bush administration? Noam Chomsky would look nice, but I'm sure you wouldn't be so quick to trust him.
Whatever, the article made the point it set out to make. If you want to take it seriously that is fine. I was posting it more to the point of seeing where people stood and to say that you may not agree with the Administration and their policies but they are not idiots. The fact that the actors in question rarely had any education past high school was merely icing on the cake. That htey feel that they can handle foreign politics better than the current (or any for that matter) administration is stupid to say the least.
Comments
Originally posted by giant
Money might not buy you a college degree, but influence does. Just like it buys National Guard service to avoid the draft.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/dem.../stories/bush/
(Note the mention of him being in the bottom 20% of his freshman class at Yale)
Anyway, the last thing I am doing is defending those celebrities. As far as I'm concerned, even as someone highly involved in the arts, they don't exist.
And it takes a pretty incapable person to fail at business even with numerous bailouts and criminal activity. He can't win even when he breaks the rules!
check Gore's record and see how much better it is...
I am failing to see your point?
I don't know, are you failing to see it?
Sorry, guess I should have spelt it out for you.
After reading the article I feel it puts things into perspective a bit.
This was your assertion. You gave it credit by asserting it "puts things into perspective", when in fact it is bent by subtle wording:
quite a speel on the adminstration but short little snippets on the accomplishments of the actors.
essentially an improper appeal to authority on the issue of
"Moral Clarity"
being that
Quality ethical concerns can be held by any semi-educated person
I'm not in the business of quoting myself all the time so if you would either read more carefully or contruct some actual questions, it may speed up the argument.
I'm confused.
At first I thought NoahJ was playing along but then he complained about flagrant grammatical errors in a manner so serious. Surely no American could sustain that tone while being ironic.
Does everyone else know what's going on?
It's all too ironical for me.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
So did NoahJ and trumptman get the original joke or not?
I'm confused.
At first I thought NoahJ was playing along but then he complained about flagrant grammatical errors in a manner so serious. Surely no American could sustain that tone while being ironic.
Does everyone else know what's going on?
It's all too ironical for me.
I was playing along. However, spelling police irritate me to no end. Especially on a internet forum.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I don't know, are you failing to see it?
Sorry, guess I should have spelt it out for you.
This was your assertion. You gave it credit by asserting it "puts things into perspective", when in fact it is bent by subtle wording:
essentially an improper appeal to authority on the issue of
being that
I'm not in the business of quoting myself all the time so if you would either read more carefully or contruct some actual questions, it may speed up the argument.
You are still failing to make a poiint that I wish to respond to. It appears that youare saying that education does not equal morality. Correct? To which I would say, true. And?
They publicly defile them and call them names like "stupid" , "morons", and_ "idiots".
and it attempts to refute that position with academic credentials to the contrary. However, I doubt that the actors are taking issue with the Bush administration's academic prowess. In which case, despite a university education, Bush may be lacking in the practical wisdom to choose the proper course of action in a given situation. Perhaps, despite having taken classes in ethics, he doesn't always see the point in acting ethically. In either case, academic credentials or the lack thereof wouldn't necessarily refute the labels doled out by some actors.
To further the point that the article's objection is irrelevant, why not replace actors with academics who also publicly defile the Bush administration? Noam Chomsky would look nice, but I'm sure you wouldn't be so quick to trust him.
Originally posted by Mac The Fork
The article takes issue with the actors' position:
and it attempts to refute that position with academic credentials to the contrary. However, I doubt that the actors are taking issue with the Bush administration's academic prowess. In which case, despite a university education, Bush may be lacking in the practical wisdom to choose the proper course of action in a given situation. Perhaps, despite having taken classes in ethics, he doesn't always see the point in acting ethically. In either case, academic credentials or the lack thereof wouldn't necessarily refute the labels doled out by some actors.
To further the point that the article's objection is irrelevant, why not replace actors with academics who also publicly defile the Bush administration? Noam Chomsky would look nice, but I'm sure you wouldn't be so quick to trust him.
Whatever, the article made the point it set out to make. If you want to take it seriously that is fine. I was posting it more to the point of seeing where people stood and to say that you may not agree with the Administration and their policies but they are not idiots. The fact that the actors in question rarely had any education past high school was merely icing on the cake. That htey feel that they can handle foreign politics better than the current (or any for that matter) administration is stupid to say the least.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
Internal Memo
Wow. Thats a recipe for PANIC.