the quote”there will always be someone prettier, smarter, or better than you” is not always true is it?
Prettiest women ever lived: Audrey hepburn, elizabeth taylor, marilyn monroe, etc.
smartest : Einstein
richest:Bill Gatz
if you can become any of them or if you are that pretty, then this quote literally does not apply to you, even tho few ppl can b like tht…….who ever invented this quote must be an uptight commoner, a mediocre person who lost the faith to dream big….if u dont “worry about it” then u wont ever have the chance to become the richest person in the world even if u hav the skills. wats ur thought on this quote?
Who Decides What is News Worthy … And What is It Based ON?
the Paternity of Anna Nicole’s Baby … Does the American/
or the International Public REALLY want NON-STOP details
during EVERY television broadcast and in EVERY publication???
Also, why did we have NON-STOP and Round-the-Clock coverage regarding the disappearances of Lacy Peterson,
Elizabeth Smart, and Natalee Holloway … Yet, when Megan
Williams (A Black Woman) was held Hostage for a Week and
was subjected to rape and other atrocities … This story bearly
got a “blur.”
We are STILL getting NEWS COVERAGE and Retrospectives on DEAD Celebrities like Elvis Presley,
Princess Diana, and Marilyn Monroe. Yet, when Yolanda King
the oldest child of Martin Luther King Jr. and his Activist wife
the late Coretta Scott King … when Yolanda died earlier this
year … Where was the RETROSPECTIVE on HER LIFE …
She was an Actress AND an ACTIVIST. She and Her Parents
left a TREMENDOUS legacy! Yet, bearly a BLUR!
I understand, what you are saying, there are other really great people, out there that are not gone and are still around. It is a shame, but true.
Have a good evening.
Something that meets these determinants is considered newsworthy.
Not all publications waste their time on the stories you’ve mentioned, in fact most reputable publications barely mention them. Most television news broadcasts, specifically 24-hour cable channels, cover this ad nauseum because a) they believe it gets better ratings than hard news would, b) it is easier and less expensive to cover, and c) 24 hours is a lot of time to fill, so they’ve got to fill it with something.
Related Links
- Has Pelosi “played ball” with special interest, only days after trumpeting new ethics reform?
- leak-proof ideas for ice while flying for my injections?
- neighbor brings her kids to play when they have PINWORMS !?
- You are what you eat? I don’t understand. And how is a picture worth a thoudand words?
- Know what this movie is?
- My iPhone alarms aren’t working after Daylight savings time is over?
- Harry Potter fans and anyone else–What do you think?
- Are you a fan of the flight attendant that cussed out a passenger, grabbed a couple beers, and then exited?
- what does post dramatic stress syndrome feel like?
- Is it possible for people that have been arrested for domestic violence ever change?
Search terms:
- there will always be someone prettier quote
- there will always be someone prettier
- there will always be someone prettier than you
- someone prettier someone smarter no one like me
- there will always be someone better than you prettier than you
- there will always be someone prettier than you quote
- there will always be someone better than you quote
- quote in life there will always be someone prettier smarter
- there will always be someone who is prettier than you and someone not as pretty there will always be someone smarter than you and someone not as smart
- theres someone smarter than you and prettier
You seem to be confused about the meaning of the word “or”. For that quote to be wrong, you have to be the prettiest person (which, let’s face it, means you are a female between the ages of 16 and 24!) and also the smartest and “best”, whatever that means. So I still believe the quote stands. Someone else just has to beat you in one of those categories, not all three.
No.
There is indeed a possibility, however lean it may be, that someone happens to be the prettiest as well as the smartest and the best amongst all.
It really depends on who is doing the judging. Speaking of Einstein, I think it is safe to say he would agree with you. Only I think he would agree for different reasons. Namely, Relativity. No one is literally prettier, smarter, or better than anyone else. It only seems this way to the observer. For some people, talking with Randy the bus driver would be more stimulating than speaking to Einstein. This immediately makes Randy smarter than Einstein. See, what the world powers try to do, through the media mostly, is come up with a universal scale by which all people should abide. This helps them control us. So they are trying to kill individual judgment in favor of world government sanctioned judgment. An IQ score is an example. This takes judgment from the individual, and gives it to what could be an arbitrary set of rules for determining intellect. This is very dangerous. Richard Feynman tested at about 122 on that test but is probably one of the smartest people ever to have lived. Imagine if we looked only at that score in judging the validity of this theories? “Sure Richard, your ideas are cute, but your IQ is not ultra high so we are just going to ignore you.” Or if Liz Taylor was really the epitome of beauty. No babies would be born because all women do not look like Liz Taylor. Universal beauty, intelligence, and betterness, is reserved for God. Not us.