George Noory – America’s Dumbest Talk Show Host Does It Again

by Jack

Speaking about Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy and his stand-off with the government Noory said, “…this would be the BLM and of course this is the Bureau of Labor Management.” Hey George this is the Bureau of Land Management! Maybe Noory was thinking the cows were being forced to work overtime?

Here’s a few other dandys that helped create the term Nooryism:

“If you raised a baby and beat it and kicked it and yelled at it, it would turn out to be a mean baby?”

“Jim, humanity has always been looking for ways to improve on our suffering and improve on disease, aging and involuntary death…”

“I would guess your mind is part of who you are.”

“I really do believe 2012 is coming. What do you think about that?”

See more at: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread830142/pg1#sthash.18h81UOk.dpuf

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to George Noory – America’s Dumbest Talk Show Host Does It Again

  1. Joe Shaw says:

    Reminds me of our last republican president. At least Noory isn’t running for any office or trying to put himself in a position of governing other peoples lives. Stupidity is more tolerable in entertainers than it is in leaders.

    • Post Scripts says:

      A recent book by a Secret Service Agent said Bush treated them like family and his wife was the nicest person they have ever encountered. He really liked Bush. According to this agent, the other agents don’t think much of Obama because treats them like servants and has no love for the military. His wife is a snot, one of the worst they’ve ever had to deal with. He also said Carter was a big phony who played it up for the media by carrying his own luggage, only it was empty.

  2. Tina says:

    While GWB’s SAT scores and grades are not consistently reported in the media, so we can’t say for sure what they were, his achievements are clear. He earned degrees from Harvard and Yale. He served as a pilot in the National Guard. These achievements require more intelligence and natural ability than your criticism would suggest, Joe.

    A classmate and current professor of Yale expounds at link above:

    Having attended Harvard Business School at the same time as the President, graduating from the two—year program a year after he did, and then serving on its faculty after a year’s interval spent writing a PhD thesis, I am intimately familiar with the rigors of the program at the time, and the minuscule degree of slack cut for even the most well—connected students, when their performance did not make the grade.

    There is simply no way on earth that the son of the then—Ambassador to China (technically, head of the Beijing Liaison Office), or anyone else, could have coasted through Harvard Business School with a ‘gentleman’s C.’ I never, ever heard of a case of an incompetent student being allowed to graduate, simply because a certain family was prominent. On the contrary, I did hear stories of well—born students having to leave prior to graduation. The academic standards were a point of considerable pride.

    An inability to learn and apply the lessons of the classroom and the voluminous nightly study materials, from regression analysis to strategy—formulation to marketing to human behavior in organizations, was simply not tolerated. Grading took place on a strict curve, and those who found themselves on the lower range of the curve in too many subjects hit the dreaded ‘screen’ and had to supply convincing rationales to the Academic Performance Committee as to why they should be allowed to attend the second year of the program, much less graduate. The screen was a vital component of the HBS quality assurance program, itself an essential method of protecting the value of the school’s MBA ‘brand.’ Harvard Business School would no sooner voluntarily graduate an incompetent MBA holder than Coca Cola would ship—out bottles containing dead mice.

    Accepting the premise that George W. Bush actually learned the lessons taught him at Harvard Business School, there are a number of characteristics of his administration which become far more understandable. Here are a few of the more important ways in which his Harvard MBA explains the way he governs.

    The very first lesson drummed—into new students, as they file into the classrooms of Aldrich Hall, is that management consists of decision—making under conditions of uncertainty. There is never perfect information, and decisions often have to be made even when you’d really prefer to know a lot more. Given this reality, students are taught many techniques for analyzing the data which is available, extracting the non—obvious facets, learning how read into it the reasonable inferences which can be made, while quantifying the risks of doing so, and learning the costs and value of obtaining additional data.

    The constant drumbeat of derision from the radical left and media created a powerful imge of President Bush that simply does not reflect the truth.

    I don’t mind that people make fun of his mistakes in the use of the language, why not, HE DID! But to suggest he is unqualified as a leader is just ignorantly wrong.

  3. Chris says:

    I’ve never heard of George Noory, but most of these sound like slips of the tongue, so Joe’s comparison was fair. Has Noory ever compared a sitting president of invading a country in order to murder Christians? Has he ever called someone a slut because he didn’t understand how hormonal birth control works? Has he ever accused Obamacare of being about “reparations?” Has he called Stephen Colbert taking Letterman’s gig “an assault on the heartland of America?” If not, I think he still has a lot of competition for dumbest radio host in America.

  4. Chris says:

    The above should say, “Has Noory ever accused a sitting president of invading a country in order to murder Christians?”

  5. Joe Shaw says:

    I judge GW from what I saw and heard, not from how the left portrayed him. That being said, he may have been a brilliant man, but it sure did not come through when he spoke off the cuff. On the other hand, I have listened to many hours of George Noory and he is actually a very brilliant person. I think that you can cherry pick parts of anybodies speeces and make them look stupid (I admit, as the left has done with GW). If you’re out there long enough and have hundreds of hours of talking on record, you’re going to say some stupid things from time to time….some of these things George Noory said are just word blunders.

  6. Tina says:

    Joe I agree that in literally thousands of hours of talking a person has put himself out there like most people never will. Noory, if I understand who he is, is talking about a subject (subjects) that is on the edge of our understanding and for many totally out there. It’s understandable that the things he says will sound funny or odd. For instance when the full weight of remarks about a subject are not taken into consideration misjudgement often follows. Or when something is taken out of context it may be completely misunderstood. Example: “I would guess your mind is part of who you are.” That could have been a comic retort. It could also be part of a discussion about aliens whose minds are carried in a jar and only utilized by choice or at whim. I can see that two people considering such a circumstance might disagree as to whether the aliens mind was part of “who the alien was”…is he a mind contemplating the body or the body contemplating the mind and which has the greater wisdom or authority?

    Anything is possible in long winded conversations. I don’t think criticism of Noory meant to be serious so much as an effort at good clean fun.

    I would hope that we could move beyond hard core monitoring of others for sport and take the time to get to know one another better.

    I’ve read that there is speculation that GWB was somewhat dyslexic, although he denies it. Although is murdered words and phrases from time to time he spoke so that people could understand what he was saying and he didn’t play games with words as some politicians LOVE to do. I admired him for that.

  7. Pie Guevara says:

    Joe Shaw reminds me of condescending, bigoted, mind set/world view stagnant and fixed, arrogant, numb nuts progressive horse’s ass.

    But hey, maybe it is just me.

  8. Pie Guevara says:

    George Noory is an idiot followed and listened to by idiots. At least his predecessor Art Bell was entertaining and amusing.

    Evidently Joe Shaw is one of Noory’s followers. No surprises there, especially since it comes from a person who still has not yet figured out that George Bush is no longer president.

  9. Pie Guevara says:

    Now, for the good news —

    Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-strategize-on-taking-control-federal-lands/

  10. Chris says:

    “But hey, maybe it is just me.”

    It certainly is.

    Also, interesting how Pie’s stream of ad hominems are just fine here, but Jack finds it necessary to censor the word “liar” whenever applied to one of his friends.

  11. Tina says:

    Excellent Pie! The piece you linked to is another example of the people rising up to stop the fundamental transformation of America by the real extremist that have been shoving Americans aside for decades!

    Chris the difference may be that we know Pie is blowing off steam…you are on a mission to destroy and whether you know it or not remains to be seen..

  12. Pie Guevara says:

    Poor set upon Chris ignores the articles I post, attacks Post Scripts, and whines about ad-hominem he himself engages in with regularity. Another snore fest from a steady stream of whining progressive snore fest from Chris.

    I have Joe Shaw pegged whether you like it or not.

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris the difference may be that we know Pie is blowing off steam…you are on a mission to destroy and whether you know it or not remains to be seen”

    Oh, I see! So if I was just blowing off steam, it would be OK for me to call you a numb nuts conservative horse’s ass. Pie certainly isn’t on a “mission to destroy” anyone by using those words against someone who has dared to express mild disagreement with him. I mean, good Lord. No one with any functioning moral compass could think that Pie’s response was in any way proportional to Joe’s comments.

    You know, I can’t even get offended by your blatant hypocrisy and double standards any more, Tina. I’m offended that you no longer make any effort to hide it.

  14. Chris says:

    Maybe I’ll just abandon all manners and decency and start cussing you out in my every comment, Tina, since that’s apparently acceptable here now. Is that what you want?

    No. I will not lower myself to your standards.

  15. Tina says:

    Chris you have called me a racist and a liar. You have claimed that I am as dumb as a post in various high hat ways. You are dismissive of me and of others. You insult the people and the sources I and others use. You insert insults about people, unrelated to the post, just so you can further insult me (or others). Instead of engaging in honest discussion, instead of respecting us, you subvert and deflect. Whatever we post you can’t defend you simply ignore and pretend has never bee that you can’t defend you simply ignore. Your entire attitude is that you are both superior to others and always right. And you have the audacity to think you have not been rude! You actually think you have not been engaging in a lowered standard of participation.

    I submit you are naive and inexperienced and therefore do not know either the left you defend and promote or the right you find so vile.

    I admit I prefer to hear from Pie when he posts an interesting article like this one.

    It does a lot more to make Post Scripts interesting and informative.

    But I also know it’s quite possible that sometimes when Pie goes off on a rant it’s in response to your need to attack rather than simply contributing to the subject under discussion or even correcting questionable information.

  16. Chris says:

    Tina: “Chris you have called me a racist”

    Nope. Not true. I have said that you have made and defended what I believe to be racist statements. That is not the same as calling you “a racist.”

    “and a liar.”

    Well, yes, and I stand by it. I mean, you just said that I have called you a racist, which isn’t true. Am I supposed to just ignore the fact that you constantly tell lies? That would not be fair to either of us. The solution to your problem is to stop telling lies.

    “You have claimed that I am as dumb as a post in various high hat ways.”

    I’ve mostly stuck to asking why you pretend to be dumber than you actually are. You consistently make arguments which you clearly do not actually believe, since you don’t apply those arguments consistently. That is stupid behavior, and I call it out.

    What I do not do is label people simply for disagreeing with me, as Pie does on a routine basis. He has never shown a shred of respect or manners to any poster here who disagrees with him on anything. Are we forgetting his treatment of Princess, who is a moderate conservative?

    I don’t attack people for disagreeing with me, Tina. I do condemn those who promote lies, ignore evidence and abuse logic in order to justify their disagreement. I know many intelligent people who disagree with me and can explain their disagreement rationally, without resorting to lies or overt fallacies. If you can’t do that, then yeah, I’m going to call you out. But Pie has no such standards. If you disagree with him, he will call you names. Period.

    “You are dismissive of me and of others. You insult the people and the sources I and others use.”

    And you don’t? I’m sorry, but dismissing invalid sources is a legitimate and important part of debate. At least I usually explain why a source is invalid, using evidence of their history. You have repeatedly dismissed sources and studies that I have posted without any similar justification. So I don’t believe these complaints have any merit.

    “But I also know it’s quite possible that sometimes when Pie goes off on a rant it’s in response to your need to attack”

    Pie’s ad hominems in this case were directed at Joe in this case, not me. Please explain to me exactly what Joe said that justified such a response.

    You cannot blame me for the behavior of another poster here when he wasn’t even responding to me. Jeez.

  17. Pie Guevara says:

    Chris and Joe Shaw forget and, without fail and consistently, try to dodge, divert, and obscure what is really at the heart of the issue. It was they who threw the first stone in these pages, period, fact.

    Their behavior is part and parcel of the progressive, or leftist, or liberal, or Democrat mental disease — selective memory and arrogance.

    One of the symptoms of their mental disorder is that, when someone — anyone — has the unmitigated gall to throw the insult, specious personal attacks, foul uncivil treatment, rhetorical fallacies, and ad-hominem attacks they spew freely and copiously right back into their ugly yaps, they are astonished, astounded and angry.

    I have dissected and deconstructed Chris (the ultimate progressive weenie coward) and Joe Shaw on several occasions in the past. I won’t bother with that waste of time again. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference how many times I try to give progressive nitwits a wake up slap in the face. They live in a constant state of denial and completely lack any aptitude for self examination. Again, such is part and parcel of their mental disease.

    Up yours, you horrid flaming hypocrites and liars (I suppose this last bit about liars will get me censored. If is does, I’ll simply re-post sans the “liars” bit.

  18. Pie Guevara says:

    Re #15 Chris :

    Maybe I’ll just abandon all manners and decency and start cussing you out in my every comment, Tina, since that’s apparently acceptable here now. Is that what you want?

    No. I will not lower myself to your standards.

    That smarmy bit of arrogant, juvenile, progressive-who-thinks-he-is-god’s-gift-twit snot deserves a 21 HA salute.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

  19. Pie Guevara says:

    Lastly an open comment to Chris and any and all other Post Scripts hate spewing detractors —

    I admire and respect Jack and Tina. They go far above and beyond the duty of patience and respect towards the people who hate them and spew thier hatred of them in these pages. At the risk of sounding like a hapless suck up, I would even go so far as to say I love them both, even though we have never met. Why? The answer is really quite simple, because they do not merely believe in free speech, they live it. 24-7 in Post Scripts. No one except the most cynical, mentally defective, and poisonous fool could not appreciate that.

    Is Post Scripts sometimes inaccurate or do they occasionally get a story wrong? Are they subject to error? Well, yes, to err is human and I wholeheartedly forgive them for being human.

    Chris (and the rest of you, you know who you are), if you do not like the way Post Scripts runs their blog, please feel free to go (snipe)
    yourselves at your earliest possible convenience. Launch you own damn blog and see if you can measure up to Post Scripts standards of free speech, you pathetic, cringe inducing, gut churning, whining creeps from hell.

  20. Tina says:

    Pie I don’t know your age but I would guess you have been a witness to the imbalance in media reporting and the unchecked laugh fest that liberals have had for more than one decade. Those who live in the left bubble of reality, including those that have lived in that bubble through the decades since the sixties can never imagine the amount of pent up emotion that exists in most of us on the right. Your criticisms paint a portrait of the collective emotion that is, for the most part, restrained.

    Conservatives do attempt to be civil and open. We do try to show everyone respect even when we disagree. We have not been given the same respect even in professional media.

    I don’t know how to give someone as young as Chris an inkling of what it is to have been subjected to this kind of oppression. It has the flavor of the worst kind of high school clicks but in the adult world where vast numbers of people can experience terrible consequences of their votes due to information manipulation and blackout. I had hoped the article that I posted in comments on another thread might bring some enlightenment but alas it only received additional scorn.

    I don’t see that I have any other choice than to continue doing what I do and respond to comments quite selectively.

  21. Chris says:

    You’re an (snip)hole, Pie.

  22. Chris says:

    Tina: “I don’t know how to give someone as young as Chris an inkling of what it is to have been subjected to this kind of oppression.”

    And you don’t have an inkling of what the word “oppression” actually means.

    “I had hoped the article that I posted in comments on another thread might bring some enlightenment but alas it only received additional scorn.”

    Yes, because it was ridiculous, and I thoroughly pointed out all the ways in which it was ridiculous. If you have any real counter-arguments to my critiques of that article, you could always make them.

  23. Tina says:

    The arrogance of youth knows no bounds…and yet the radical progressive apologist manages to surpass those bounds.

    Moving on.

Comments are closed.