Article

2004-07-18 Down Under

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-07-18 12:28:02 PM|| || Front Page|| [11125 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 As a corollary to Godwin's rule, whenever a leftist accuses someone of being stupid, it is a confession that they, themselves, are utterly stumped, confused, bewildered, in ignorance and are unable to grasp what is really going on. They are painfully aware that others are smarter, more talented, and generally more capable than they are. And this pains them, so they lash out by calling others "stupid."

A subset of this corollary is only for those individuals leftists feels *inherently* superior to, such as the ethnic minorities they normally patronize. They feel they cannot call them "stupid", so they attack their 'credentials' as minorities--African-Americans are "oreos", for example, if they hold a opinion different from the leftist.

Posted by Anonymoose 2004-07-18 2:19:39 PM|| 2004-07-18 2:19:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 A right-winger with the same high profile as Moore and who spouted 10 % the bullshit Moore comes out with (and I'm talking downright lies, not opinion) wouldn't last a week without his/her credibility being torn to shreds from all sides. As it is, the left regards Moore's deceit as not just permissible but irrelevant to his value as an opinion-maker. He's walking, talking, blimp-sized proof that the majority of today's anti-American left isn't interested in objective truth - they're either utterly unprincipled or insane.

Moore tells us that there are conspiracies everywhere. Why then hasn't anyone managed to shut him up?

Posted by Bulldog 2004-07-18 2:47:35 PM|| 2004-07-18 2:47:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Does Michael Moore have any solutions to any of these problems he sees, or does he just enjoy shooting his big, fat mouth off? I think I probably answered my own question.

Posted by nada 2004-07-18 2:48:02 PM|| 2004-07-18 2:48:02 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 firing up his loser base... the film's not doing well anymore...

Posted by Frank G 2004-07-18 2:51:47 PM|| 2004-07-18 2:51:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 "He's walking, talking, blimp-sized proof that the majority of today's anti-American left isn't interested in objective truth - they're either utterly unprincipled or insane."

Moore tells us that there are conspiracies everywhere. Why then hasn't anyone managed to shut him up?

Second paragraph is answered by the first.

Posted by too true 2004-07-18 3:28:17 PM|| 2004-07-18 3:28:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Anonymoose, I've recieved a couple of email from friends, good guys all, which to them constitutes high level thought about the current situation.

One was a picture of GW's cabinet heads, with a snarkey comment about how each one, ah, stupid!

The other was a picture of GW at his desk signing an order. The caption was something like, "Time to attack Afgannan, Afginis, er Iraq!"

Nothing there but stupid shit. Stupid, dum, moron, empty stuff. Compared to what you can get if you want to, say like DaveD's Iraq: Distraction?, piece.

It's fun to reply to these guys with some solid stuff and get back....chirp,chirp...chirp.

Posted by Lucky 2004-07-18 3:44:17 PM|| 2004-07-18 3:44:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 It's fun to reply to these guys with some solid stuff and get back....chirp,chirp...chirp.
I don't know if you read Chronwatch or not, but I think it's great. In one section it analyzes 3 or 4 ordinary biased MSM articles published each day. In another section it focuses specifically on over the top nutty pieces like Michael Moore tirades. And it also has a section of featured cartoons. Maybe you can find "treasures" on Chronwatch to email back to your pals who make fun of Bush and his cabinet.
http://www.chronwatch.com

I get personally ticked off when I hear or read a left winger mocking the smarts of GWB. While it's true he is a disaster with a microphone when he's reading Karl Rovian words like "evil doers', he does pretty well for himself when he speaks from the heart, and getting an MBA from Yale is no easy feat as it is, for example,like getting a theatre arts or journalism degree. cough,cough

Anyways here' a serious article written by one of the Chronwatch editors who researched the education levels of GWB and company versus the Hollywood great minds who see their sorry siliconized/Botoxed selves as being oh-so erudite and statesmanlike.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1991
"Who's Smarter, Hollywood Types or Bush and Cabinet?"

Posted by rex 2004-07-18 4:23:14 PM|| 2004-07-18 4:23:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Bush's bachelor's degree is from Yale but his MBA is from Harvard.

Yale doesn't really have an MBA program, exactly ... more of an organizational theory program when I looked a decade ago ....

Posted by rkb 2004-07-18 4:26:52 PM|| 2004-07-18 4:26:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 ooops...you are right, #8, I meant to type Harvard but my fingers were faster than my brain, which was still savoring GWB's undergraduate degree, which was from Yale as you note.

Here's another article pub'd in 9/07/2000 in the Boston Globe that was written by an attorney and research fellow at Harvard Law School. She debunked the Rat myth that Al Goresky was oh-so much smarter than GWB and therefore would do a better job as Prez. Reprinted courtesy of Larry Elder.
http://www.larryelder.com/Gore/goredubiousrecord.htm
"Gore's Dubious School Record"
When will the liberal media stop treating left-wing ideology as a proxy for intelligence? For months the press has questioned the intellect of Republican candidate George W. Bush, while describing Al Gore as "serious," "intellectual" - even "wonkish." The basis for the media's unfair attacks on Bush's intelligence is his 30-year-old Yale College transcript (purloined last fall and published by The New Yorker). Yet The Washington Post's subsequent revelation of Gore's unimpressive academic record has done little to alter the media's false portrayal of Gore as "the smartest kid in the class." It is a record that is worth reviewing, if only to debunk the myth of Gore as a serious student.

Gore's undergraduate transcript from Harvard is riddled with C's, including a C-minus in introductory economics, a D in one science course, and a C-plus in another. "In his sophomore year at Harvard," the Post reported, "Gore's grades were lower than any semester recorded on Bush's transcript from Yale." Moreover, Gore's graduate school record - consistently glossed over by the press - is nothing short of shameful. In 1971, Gore enrolled in Vanderbilt Divinity School where, according to Bill Turque, author of "Inventing Al Gore," he received F's in five of the eight classes he took over the course of three semesters. Not surprisingly, Gore did not receive a degree from the divinity school. Nor did Gore graduate from Vanderbilt Law School, where he enrolled for a brief time and received his fair share of C's. (Bush went on to earn an MBA from Harvard).

But whereas the liberal press has described Bush's college days as a time of misspent youth, media accounts of Gore's undergraduate years are grossly fawning. (The New York Times: "As Mr. Bush was frolicking around Yale, a young man named Al Gore was studying at Harvard"; "Harvard nurtured the part of [Gore] that is in love with the world of ideas." The New Republic: "At Harvard, Gore set himself formidable intellectual challenges.")...Biased reporters, however, are not the only ones to blame. Indeed, the vice president himself has cultivated this genius persona (one of many). Thus, he did not correct PBS News anchor Gwen Ifill when she referred to him as a graduate of Vanderbilt Law School. Even more significant was the line in Gore's convention acceptance speech in which he stated, "I know my own imperfections. I know that sometimes people say I'm too serious, that I talk too much substance and policy." Poor Al, he's just too smart for the job.

Of course, the stereotyping of conservative candidates as dumb and liberal candidates as "brilliant" is nothing new. During the 1950s, the media lionized Democrat Adlai Stevenson as an intellectual, while ridiculing Republican Dwight Eisenhower as an ineffectual simpleton. Back then, the members of the press knew full well that Stevenson attended Harvard Law School and, yet, had not received a degree. But the media gave Stevenson a pass. (Sound familiar?) Had resourceful journalists investigated, they might have learned (as we now know from Stevenson's biographer John Bartlow Martin) that Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold had hidden Stevenson's transcript in a locked cabinet in his office. What was he hiding? Stevenson, the so-called "thinking man's candidate," had, in fact, flunked out of Harvard Law.

In the end, neither intellect nor academic performance is an especially important criterion by which to judge our presidents. Ronald Reagan and Harry Truman were no scholars, but they rank among the best presidents in our country's history. And what about many liberals' favorite president - Franklin Roosevelt? Social, popular, and famously unserious as an undergraduate at Harvard, FDR had an undistinguished academic record. Yet, later in life, Roosevelt's charisma and his ability to persuade, compromise, and lead helped him to become a "reformer with results."

This election is not an I.Q. test; it is about which candidate has better judgment. And that is why, despite the media's love affair with the celluloid image of Al Gore the policy-wonk, it is the affable, authentic, and sensible Bush who would make the better leader.

Posted by rex 2004-07-18 4:52:18 PM|| 2004-07-18 4:52:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Moore-on a half ass accusing Howard of being a half brain? How mooronic

Posted by Capt America 2004-07-18 4:52:57 PM|| [http://captamerica.blogspot.com/] 2004-07-18 4:52:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Does Australia also have a law against electioneering by foreigners? The Canadian authorities don't have the balls to enforce their own such law against Lumpy (who is after all one of their own in the only terms that matter) but the Oz-niks who have so far resisted the non-stop Hate America indoctrination from the local ~~Oil tick propaganda whores~~ media might be a different story.

Posted by Atomic Conspiracy 2004-07-18 5:22:26 PM|| 2004-07-18 5:22:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Michael Moore: Dropped out first year University of Michigan. Major claim to fame comes as a result of directing movies that criticizes others.

GWB[whom MM calls an idiot]:Received a bachelor's 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 re-election 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.

John Howard[whom MM describes as having 1/2 a brain]: attended University of Sydney, graduated with a Bachelor of Laws in 1961 and was admitted as a Solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court in July 1962. Prior to his election to Parliament he was a partner in a Sydney firm of solicitors.

Posted by rex 2004-07-18 5:48:17 PM|| 2004-07-18 5:48:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Roos don't take kindly to pushy filmmakers...

Posted by .com 2004-07-19 12:02:52 AM|| 2004-07-19 12:02:52 AM|| Front Page Top

11:28 B
11:18 RelevantTopic
12:29 CrazyFool
03:24 Bulldog
00:35 RW
00:14 Steve White
00:09 Steve White
00:02 .com
00:00 .com
00:00 .com
23:59 Barbara Skolaut
23:55 .com
23:53 Barbara Skolaut
23:52 Barbara Skolaut
23:51 Barbara Skolaut
23:45 .com
23:39 someone
23:33 BH
23:32 trailing wife
23:23 muck4doo
23:15 whitecollar redneck
23:08 muck4doo
23:05 Brett_the_Quarkian
22:14 Halfass Pete