posted January 05, 2009 09:25 AM           

quote:

---

persistence

---

posted January 05, 2009 10:39 AM         

Now, Coulter was right. There were Canadian military forces in Vietnam...sent to Vietnam by the Canadian government.

Coulter right, leftists wrong, as usual. Seems the blah, blah, blah is all coming from hateful leftists who can't back up what they incessantly shriek...with any facts. BTW, what are hateful leftists doing on the Astrology forum devoted to love and light, launching gratuitous cowardly attacks on people who are not here to defend themselves?

Sorry Green Fairy...but Canada most certainly did send Canadian troops to Vietnam. Proved...end of the story...at least for those capable of intellectual honesty.

The only ones looking stupid here are those shriekers, screechers, howlers and thumb sucking whining leftist haters, the leftist chorus, who can't get it through their heads that Ann Coulter is (1) intellectually superior to them, (2) morally superior to them, (3) spiritually superior to them and (4) Ann Coulter is a "Classical Liberal" while they get their own ideology from the 5th rate thinker from the 19th Century, Karl Marx and are in no way liberals at all.

Coulter was also right about McCarthy and McCarthy was right about the penetration of the US government and Hollywood by Soviet agents. You would know that if you ever bothered to check your facts...try the Verona files.

Coulter is also right about Bush; the US President responsible for liberating 25 million Iraqi citizens from the grip of a murderous Socialist dictator, establishing a representative government in Iraq, rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq, rebuilding the economy of Iraq and killing tens of thousands of terrorists who will never again deliberately and intentionally attack and kill innocent civilians...including women and children.

Mars in Aries in the 6th House MVM. I'm very civic minded, believe in truth and justice...Leo Moon and consider it a public service to halt the spread of ignorance.

posted January 05, 2009 04:07 PM         

I don't find a lot of Iraqis are grateful for the US presence, certainly not the ones I met while I was in Egypt. A lot of them are very, very bitter. They've gone from one evil to another, and there's a huge problem with immigration now from Iraq to a lot of the other Arab countries, and it's putting a huge strain on the resources and economy. So I guess I find the US presence is a bit irresponsible as well, because there's a lot of long-term damage from their presence. And they should be held responsible to an extent, I would say. It's only fair, and would be just.

And what about these privatized corporations like Blackwater, Halliburton, and Titan? Where do they figure in? These guys aren't even part of the government military but are completely privatized and have their own people who are paid a ton of money, and who are given special privileges when it comes to this war. They're making a huge profit, and lot of it is getting funneled right back into the government.

I just think it's a dirty war. All war is dirty, yes, but you know, I can respect honest greed, and even blatant, honest greed LOL...as long as it doesn't hide behind the guise of so-called nobility or liberation. So I don't think Bush was really thinking about liberation of Iraq. There's definitely a greater agenda, and I find that the politics of the whole thing does override the sense of truth and justice. Unfortunately.
Ok, off-off topic from Coulter, but I just needed to say that.

Anyway, just my 2 cents...*shrug*

posted January 06, 2009 12:46 AM         

I'll concede the Canadians in Vietnam bit, but that certainly doesn't make Ann "right" on a wide range of subjects. Anyone with half a brain can figure that out.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200901040002
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20010716.html

Her war on the more popular party (as known by the number of people registered between the parties) doesn't do anyone except herself any good. Wait. I take that back. I guess some people may be entertained by her, and I can see the value in that. Not much else, though.

I agree with 60-something percent of people who agree that Bush isn't doing a good job. To try to hold him up as a great guy for his work in Iraq is to forget every botched step he made along the way. Kudos on the surge, but things are still quite delicate over there, and much of what preceded the surge wasn't efficiently or effectively prepared. That video of Cheney in '94 says everything that doesn't appear to have been brought into consideration.

posted January 07, 2009 12:59 PM         

Of course you concede there were Canadian troops in Vietnam...sent there by the Canadian government. What else could you do in the face of facts. The real question here is....why post a video based on a false premise when the truth of the matter is available with a simple Internet search?

If you wish to continue this, you will be forced to concede on the rest of what Coulter has said when the facts are presented which knock the props out from under your arguments.

A Joint Resolution of Congress authorized the use of US military forces to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Bush did exactly what he said he would do...give military commanders on the ground what they said they needed and not attempt to micromanage the war...and also not permit the Congress to interfere and micromanage the war either. Bush kept his word. The fact is some commanders made mistakes which happened on the Bush watch and he takes the blame for that.

But, the US policy to remove Saddam Hussein from the top of the government of Iraq was adopted by another Joint Resolution of Congress in 1998...on Kommander Korruption's watch and he didn't have the balls to implement the Joint Resolution to remove Saddam Hussein.

If it's all the same to you acoustic, I prefer to take lessons in astrology from someone who knows what they're doing and that's not you. Who can forget your attempt to misrepresent what Jan Spiller said about Nodes...and in her words was a clear warning to YOU which you are still ignoring.

That video clip of Cheney was taken from 1994 and at that time...what Cheney said was true. There was no plan in place to remove Saddam and deal with all the issues which would arise then; the UN Security Council Resolution did not call for the removal of Saddam and the US..and Coalition partners were acting on the basis of that UN Resolution which only called for the removal of Iraqi military forces from Kuwait.

AOL: Growing majority worried over eligibility
Even half in Illinois say issue should be reviewed, resolved
Posted: December 31, 2008
8:20 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh

An unscientific poll by America Online suggests more and more people are having second thoughts about Barack Obama's eligibility to occupy the Oval Office.
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/12/05/hot-seat-obamas-birth-certificate/

Those who raised questions about his vague history before the election largely drew scorn from the mainstream media, which cited an online image from Obama's campaign that purportedly proved his U.S. citizenship with a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth."

But the latest results from the America Online poll say only 41 percent of the participants now believe there is no issue to be investigated.

Fifty-three percent nationwide, and majorities in 45 states individually, say "yes" when asked if there is "any merit" to the controversy surrounding his citizenship. Even in Obama's own state, Illinois, the opinion is split 47-47 percent on the issue.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=84990

MVM, I don't think oil was the reason for removing Saddam in Iraq...and I never did, in spite of the well known ditty..."no blood for oil" which was a campaign by move on dot org types and A.N.S.W.E.R., an international communist group fronting for Workers World Party..a Stalinist communist group attempting to keep one of their own murderous Socialists in power in Iraq.

Buried somewhere in GU archives is a study I did long ago. That study shows that if every drop of oil produced by Iraq was taken by the US for the next 20 years...without paying a penny to Iraq for that oil...the value of that oil would not equal the cost in dollars the US had already committed to spend to remove Saddam.

Further, among the Middle East nations only Saudi Arabia is a major supplier of oil to the US today.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company _level_imports/current/import.html

Prior to the war in Iraq, there was an oil embargo on Iraqi oil which only permitted the sale of oil through the UN Oil for Food program and the US bought no oil or almost no oil from Iraq.

posted January 07, 2009 04:43 PM         

I know you believe everything Ann Coulter says is true. I also know that in the face of facts you only choose to see or believe the ones convenient to your belief, and you'd rather not admit it when you're wrong.

Regarding astrology and Jan Spiller, I still recall that I posted her actual words whereas certain other people who will remain nameless tried to disagree with Spiller's words. You're not the one with the links to Spiller's work on speed dial. (Thanks for this example illustrating perfectly your unwillingness to admit your mistake alongside your willingness to take an argument you lost and claim it as a win.)

The video clip of Cheney fairly accurately served as a relevant foreshadowing of events to come.

posted January 07, 2009 07:44 PM         

But acoustic...you did say this...and as usual, you were wrong.

quote:

---

You try proving one of Ann Coulter's factual blunders by posting confirmation that she was indeed wrong. Coulter's assertion was that CANADA sent troops to Vietnam. Your own articles state that no such thing occurred. Do you get that? She said CANADA sent them, not the United States. As such Coulter was wrong, and leapinglemur was right.....acoustic

---

You also said this:

quote:

---

You don't despise the dumb kid in class who's a bit slow on the uptake and always asking questions. You're just annoyed that your time is being used inefficiently....acoustic

---

I don't know how to break this to you acoustic...without hurting your feelings but Coulter is not the dumb kid in the class. So far, Coulter is batting 1000 and your side is whiffing/striking out.

I notice neither you or anyone else here has come up with a single instance where Coulter stated something/anything which isn't true. So acoustic, when are you going to get aroundtoit?

Yeah, you posted Jan Spiller's words...but then, you put you own spin on those words and attempted to use those words to say something Spiller DIDN'T say. In other words, you misrepresented what Spiller said and got yourself called on it. No one disagreed with what Jan Spiller said; the disagreement was with your twisted distortion of what she said. You got yourself thoroughly thumped for that one.

You must not have been paying attention when you watched that Cheney video acoustic. The statements Cheney made were true for the time in which they were made....about invading Baghdad, about parts of Iraq flying off as Iraq's neighbors fought over pieces of Iraqi land...oil fields and of course the problems between the Kurds and Turkey. None of that happened in this instance and therefore your attempt to cast this video as a preview of coming events is bogus.

However, you neglected to mention the Joe Gasbag O'Biden plan to partition Iraq into 3 countries. Now that would have touched off a broader war involving Iran, Syria, Turkey,Saudi Arabia and perhaps Kuwait as they fought over territory, oil and differences in religious sects. Strangely, O'Biden is seen by leftists to be a "foreign policy expert".

The AOL poll makes it clear what people all over America are thinking about O'Bomber's Constitutional qualifications to be President. Don't expect the "in the bag for O'Bomber press" to run a poll on that subject. They don't want to so much as talk about the subject, let alone take the pulse of America on that subject. O'Bomber could have cleared this all up at any time by releasing the vault copy of his "actual birth certificate" instead of a "certificate of live birth" which is a different document.

Perhaps you should contact Pew and ask them to run that poll...and while you're at it, you could ask Pew the questions you said you were going to ask them to prove your point....years ago...but didn't. Or, perhaps you did and didn't like the answer you got back from Pew.

posted January 07, 2009 10:39 PM         

You want a book of Coulter lie analysis? http://www.amazon.com/Brainless-Lies-Lunacy-Ann-Coulter/dp/0061243507
(That way you can take it with you, and argue with the book. Of course the book will probably kick your ass, but since you don't hear argument it won't matter.)

How about this: calling Jimmy Carter a traitor for receiving a Nobel award:

quote:

---

Carter would travel to Norway to accept the award in December 2002 - two months after Congress had authorized war against Iraq. Article III's definition of treason is narrow. But after Congress's action authorizing war, for any American to accept this award on the ground offered does sound terribly like "adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (p. 257)

---

You and I have had conversations about treason in the past, and it's quite clear that both you and her don't understand what treason is, how it's proven, or how it's prosecuted.

quote:

---

Coulter also repeatedly cites quotations out of context from the original source material, implying that reporters reached conclusions that were actually presented by sources quoted in the piece. In one particularly dishonest case, she claims that the New York Times "reminded readers that Reagan was a 'cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat'" after the invasion of Grenada (p. 179). However, the "cowboy" quote is actually from a Reagan administration official quoted in a Week in Review story who said, ''I suppose our biggest minus from the operation is that there now is a resurgence of the caricature of Ronald Reagan, the cowboy, ready to shoot at the drop of a hat.'' http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

---

I posted this link previously. You could have just read it instead of asking for me or anyone else to find a Coulter lie. Who's the lazy one now?

quote:

---

Yeah, you posted Jan Spiller's words...but then, you put you own spin on those words and attempted to use those words to say something Spiller DIDN'T say.

---

No. As I recall, I posted her words exactly, and they conveyed exactly the meaning I had pointed out. The original thread was about what placements made people overly sensitive. I said Cancerian South Node. LLL didn't like it, not as a matter of reason, but as a matter of dislike for me, and you foolishly jumped on her bandwagon.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/007999.html
I told you, I have this on speed dial. Zala's 4th post - you're bound to see what I claimed, and what I quoted in defense of what I said. LLL wanted to say it couldn't be a "trait" where Spiller is clearly (for anyone who has two eyes to see and read with) saying that it is. There's no room for one to argue against, so any claims of beating me would be literally impossible and preposterous.

quote:

---

You must not have been paying attention when you watched that Cheney video acoustic.

---

I don't get how you justify this whole paragraph of yours. What Cheney said has been an ongoing issue, and continues to be an issue to this day. Perhaps you need to get a little more intimate with your knowledge of Iraq. Maybe the neighboring countries aren't as interested in the land per se, but the distinct groups within Iraq are still proving quite difficult to unify.

quote:

---

However, you neglected to mention the Joe Gasbag O'Biden plan to partition Iraq into 3 countries. Now that would have touched off a broader war involving Iran, Syria, Turkey,Saudi Arabia and perhaps Kuwait as they fought over territory, oil and differences in religious sects. Strangely, O'Biden is seen by leftists to be a "foreign policy expert".

---

In the absense of unity amongst the Iraqi people his proposition is quite logical. Any expert on Iraq would see where he's coming from. This is why he and Obama have continued to drill the point about the need for political reconciliation there. People don't understand what they're saying, because Americans are generally in the dark on the subject altogether. It remains an issue to be dealt with.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/01/15/iraq.main/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28528236/

quote:

---

The AOL poll makes it clear what people all over America are thinking about O'Bomber's Constitutional qualifications to be President.

---

You're not likely to sway my opinion on AOL's poll. I'm frankly surprised that AOL even exists as an entity anymore, much less as a relevant source of unscientific polls. What does a relevant source of unscientific polls produce in all practicality? No economist can turn to an unjustified set of parameters (an unscientific poll) and come up with something actually relevant from the data. How in the heck do you propose to do it?

I'll tell you what, though. Let me know when Bush's Superior Court takes the issue up, because then and ONLY then will this issue come to mean something in the practical world. (oh, and a hundred thousand votes on an internet poll doesn't equal half the nation...ever.)

quote:

---

Perhaps you should contact Pew and ask them to run that poll...and while you're at it, you could ask Pew the questions you said you were going to ask them to prove your point....years ago...but didn't. Or, perhaps you did and didn't like the answer you got back from Pew.

---

posted January 08, 2009 02:23 PM         

quote:

---

Jwhop, finding a Coulter lie isn't a tough thing to do. A simple Google search for one is quite easy to do as well....acoustic

---

quote:

---

How about this: calling Jimmy Carter a traitor for receiving a Nobel award:...acoustic

---

quote:

---

There's no room for one to argue against, so any claims of beating me would be literally impossible and preposterous....acoustic

---

quote:

---

I'll tell you what, though. Let me know when Bush's Superior Court takes the issue up...acoustic

---

posted January 08, 2009 03:06 PM         

quote:

---

Is that so acoustic? Then here's a question for you. Why didn't you do that simple search, find the lie Coulter told, explain why it's a lie and provide proof it was a lie. You're all talk and no action acoustic.

---

Pardon me?

I have consistently had to have YOU back up your claims. I'm hardly the intellectually lazy one between us. That's some more subjectivity on your part I'm afraid. On this subject in general I've found that Democratic-leaning people generally source their information better overall than Conservatives do.

quote:

---

So, why haven't you? Posting a link to a site spewing nonsense in not proof of anything...except it proves the poster is full of hot air and their argument lacks substance.

---

No, those are legitimate untruths uncovered by legitimate truth searchers. If you could disprove them, you would do so instead of trying to turn this into a failure on my part.

I know your every tactic, Jwhop. There's no way you're going to snow me, or convince anyone here that you have a superior perspective.

The people have spoken right here in this thread on how credible they believe Coulter to be. Your attempt at defending her can only make people's perspective of you and her worse, so it's a fools errand to attempt to persuade through argument.

Your Carter defense is extremely weak on it's face. Treason is a legal term for which the definition and application are decided by courts. Obviously, everyone never convicted of treason is to be assumed innocent of treason. That's the way it works in this country. Treason's definition is not up to a lay person to decide.

Spinsanity got the LIE right on that account, and likely many others. Coulter trying to put forth the NYT as saying something a person within the Reagan administration said fits the definition of lie to a "T". She attempted to deceive. Point blank.

quote:

---

You still haven't been able to come up with a single lie Coulter told.

---

Obviously I did, and it was documented, and remains documented for anyone who is curious as many others are. No amount of debate is going to change that FACT.

As I already pointed out, I couldn't have lost the argument on North Nodes for the reasons I already stated. Your misunderstanding of the facts can't undo that. And this statement: "where you're supposed to be at this point in your life," shows me that you don't even really have a conception of what the Nodes are about in the first place. How could you judge yourself the winner in an argument on a subject you blatantly don't understand?

quote:

---

You posted the wrong thread acoustic.

---

I posted the right thread for anyone wanting to learn what Jan Spiller said regarding Capricorn North Node, which concurs with my position.

quote:

---

The cure for simple ignorance is knowledge acoustic but there is no cure for willful ignorance.

---

That's true, Jwhop. Why don't you learn something, and stop making a fool of yourself?

Your version of the truth of what Cheney said versus what happened is skewed. As I said, any expert on Iraq would back me up on my assessment without hesitation. To focus only on whether other nations stepped in to try to partition off Iraq misses everything else.

Bush has appointed the Roberts to lead the Supreme Court. I therefore feel justified in calling it Bush's Supreme Court as one of his appointees sets the agenda.

Yes, I hounded you to confirm what answering a question on a scale was like for days. Isis came in to try to get me to abate. I don't remember if there were others.

I was right about that debate from the get go. You are right that NYT's business has gotten progressively worse, but when we started with the poll it was your assertion that essentially no one believed the Times that was the subject of debate. That was not a conclusion supported by your source. No, Pew wouldn't have reason to laugh at my interpretation as my interpretation has always been correct. As I recall, you did eventually eek out a concession that you misread the data.

quote:

---

Btw, I'm not the one with the burning need to be seen as being right.

---

Well good. I just can't comprehend why you would start these arguments if you're ok being wrong. If you believe every word Coulter says, so be it. That doesn't mean you need to defend her from people who already have a poor impression of her. What good would that do?

I can certainly live and let live, and I'm willing to do so (as you've seen with most of your friends). I'm not very tolerant of nonsense, though, and beyond that I'm not very fond of unfair or unobjective treatment of issues. (And, of course, it has nothing to do with Nodes whatsoever. )

posted January 08, 2009 06:44 PM         

quote:

---

(oh, and a hundred thousand votes on an internet poll doesn't equal half the nation...ever.)

---

Don't suppose there's anything deceptive about the wording of the results of that alleged "poll".....

posted January 12, 2009 03:43 PM         

* The United States oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens...while Saddam Hussein was in power in Iraq during the 1990's.

* The United States oppressed/repressed Iraqi citizens....by not packaging up a water treatment plant and shipping the treatment plant to Saddam....while Saddam was in power in Iraq in the 1990's.

* American citizens were guilty of oppressing/repressing Iraqi citizens...by not insisting the embargo against Saddam Hussein be lifted in the 1990's.

* American citizens were guilty of oppressing/repressing Iraqi citizens...by not insisting a water treatment plant be sent to Saddam in the 1990's.

* George W. Bush is a murderer...based on the 6th Commandment in the Old Testament bible.

* George W Bush lied and manipulated intelligence data to take the US to war in Iraq.

* George W Bush pressured intelligence analysts to produce reports with findings favorable to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

* Keith Thompson...of "Leaving the Left" fame is a Conservative. So says you acoustic.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/22/INGUNCQHKJ1.DTL

* Capricorns don't lie.

This is merely a sampling of the bullshiit which has escaped from your lower orifice disguised as rational commentary but, there's nothing reasonable, logical or rational about any of your leftist views. You're an irrational, illogical leftist extremist, as your writings show. Your inability to back up any part of your allegations is the hallmark of leftist thought. When challenged, leftists move on to make yet more lying inflammatory allegations which they also can't back up with any facts.

You have yet to post one lie Coulter told...and back it up with a shred of proof. Posting someone else's bullshiiit in the expectation it will be accepted as proof is the mark of leftist intellectual lightweights. On the left, lying intellectual lightweights litter the landscape.

Something else leftists aren't capable of understanding. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. So acoustic...and the rest of the "I hate Coulter" crowd; prove your allegations.

Treason against the United States consists of "Making war against them" and/OR giving "aid and comfort to enemies". Treason is the only crime specifically spelled out in the United States Constitution and there is no mention of courts, trials or other mechanisms to establish the crime. Prosecutions are a choice of prosecutors to prosecute or not prosecute. One is a murderer when one deliberately, intentionally and willfully takes the life of an innocent person and it doesn't take a prosecution and conviction to make one a murderer. It takes only the action and a prosecution and conviction are the means by which society exacts punishment for the crime. As usual, your thinking is illogical. The US Constitution spells out the definition of Treason and that definition is not up to courts or prosecutors to define. Courts and prosecutors are established "to punish actions", not define the crime. Crimes are defined by legislative acts and in the case of Treason, that crime is defined by the Constitution itself.

James Earl "The Teeth" Carter was a traitor and subsequent acts of this bungling, incompetent boob are merely a continuing pattern of treason. The same can be said and have been said of John Traitor Kerry. Both of these leftist boobs have given "aid and comfort" to America's enemies.

You were a dead bang loser with your nonsense interpretation of the Moon's Nodes...proven in the very writings of Jan Spiller you posted. I like it a lot when people like you destroy you own arguments by posting the proof you are wrong...and don't even recognize what they're doing. The Moon's Nodes speak to Issues of the Houses which the signs rule....Not to personality. I enjoyed it a great deal when you attempted to tell other members here..."what they are like" based on their "nodes". They thoroughly kicked your ass for your arrogance and presumption and it was necessary for the moderator to step in and stop you from misleading other members with your nonsense.

Of course, IF YOU ARE A NORTH NODE CAPRICORN then you are supposed to be pursuing issues related to the 10th House...and leaving behind emotional Cancer issues related to the 4th House. Nothing could be more clear. It's also clear you are failing to do so.

quote:

---

I posted the right thread for anyone wanting to learn what Jan Spiller said regarding Capricorn North Node, which concurs with my position...acoustic

---

Your purpose in posting the wrong thread will be apparent to everyone...who reads the "right thread" on the subject. Your purpose was to save face in the argument over Nodes which you lost hands down on every count and were properly chastised for attempting to spread misinformation on the Astrology Forum.
http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/010079.html

When I make a mistake I admit it. Unlike you acoustic; you who attempt to pretend you're right...when you're wrong because you have this fear of being seen to be wrong. Unfortunately, for you, this leaves you arguing irrationally, illogically and unreasonably because you fear being seen to be wrong threatens your standing in some way. I'm not the one dealing with emotional 4th House issues of Cancer South Node, you are. I'm a True Node Virgo and I have no intentions of enabling you in your various errors and evasions. You were given good advice; grow up, be a man and admit your error.

"The cure for simple ignorance is knowledge acoustic but there is no cure for willful ignorance. "

Cheney was right for the 1994 period of which he spoke. 2003 was a different story and what was feared in 1991 didn't come to pass in 2003-2008. Face it, your sources were wrong about the war and you were wrong about the war. In spite of leftists attempting to get the US defeated, Bush disregarded their bullshiiit and Iraq has a representative government, 25 million Iraqis are free there, a murderous butcher, Saddam Hussein is dead...along with his butchering insane sons and tens of thousands of terrorists are dead in Iraq. Bush was right about Iraq; brain dead leftist morons were wrong and no amount of spin or ducking, bobbing and weaving is going to change the facts on the ground.

You didn't call it the Bush Supreme Court. You called it the Bush Superior Court....another inexcusable error. Your view of how cases come before the Supreme Court is as flawed as the rest of your nonsense. Cases are presented to a Justice for review. If that Justice agrees there is merit to a full hearing before the Court, the case is presented to the rest of the Justices in a "conference". If there are a majority of Justices who agree, the full Supreme Court "hears" the case...almost always an appeal from the decision of a lower Federal Court.

The fact you didn't write that letter to the Pew organization proves you didn't think you were right. Facts and time proved I was right and the Treason Times and the rest of the lying press outlets have lost subscriptions, advertising revenue and their finances are in the toilet....exactly what I said was going to happen when enough people realized they were being lied to...and a direct consequence of lying to their readers in print. Now acoustic, if you want to write that letter to the Pew organization...the Polling organization, I'll still furnish their mailing address to you....as I already promised to do several years ago...or, you could get off your lazy backside and look it up for yourself.

My point has always been that only 21% of respondents to the Pew Poll found the NY Times to be a highly credible source for news. That was Pew's own analysis and the only conclusion they could come to when only 21% of poll respondents believe "ALL" or even "MOST" of what the NY Times prints as news. Time proved me right...and you wrong...when the NY Times went into a tail spin, readers and advertisers deserted the Times and they will be lucky indeed to escape bankruptcy court. It's not wise to lie to your subscribers.

Your nonsense that you got a concession from me on the data points is laughable. My position remains the same as it always was and time has proved me right...and your analysis in serious error..as usual.

I don't "necessarily believe" everything anyone says; Coulter included. But I do check and when people are right, including Coulter, I give them proper credit. On the other hand, you acoustic believe every word which issues from the rear of any crackpot leftist. You repeat their bullshiit to your error and detriment.

quote:

---

Do I believe in reincarnation?? ...I don't know. I've never had a past life experience to give credence to such a belief for certain, but I'm definitely open to the possibility.....acoustic

---

I know this concept escapes you accoustic...like most other things but Moon Nodes interpretations REQUIRE a past life...South Node..."AND REINCARNATION", North Node/True Node to have any validity/meaning at all. You may as well take Jan Spiller's writings off "speed dial".

This for you Zala...and from a leftist source.

The awarding of the Nobel Prize was a political stunt by the Nobel Committee and the Chairman of the Committee admitted as much.

"U.S. lawmakers gave Bush solid bipartisan support on Thursday for a strike on Iraq, despite wide misgivings abroad."

"But the chairman of the secretive Norwegian Nobel Committee said bluntly that the award was meant to slam Bush's policy on Iraq."

"With the position Carter has taken...(the award) can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq," Committee head Gunnar Berge, a former labor minister, told reporters."

Asked by a reporter if it was a "kick in the leg" at Washington, Berge said: "Yes, the answer is an unconditional 'yes."' On Friday, Carter declined to comment on Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1011-07.htm

There are many sources for the same information...other than the leftists at "Common Dreams"...making the same point that the awarding of the Nobel was political and aimed at the United States. Perhaps you can find all those "other" sources for yourself.

No one who knows anything about the Nobel Committee would be the least surprised to hear they awarded the "Peace Prize" to Osama bin Laden. After all, they awarded the "Peace Prize" to a stone cold murdering terrorist...Yasser Arafat.

posted January 12, 2009 04:53 PM           

or maybe funny isn't or wasn't the word you were looking for? no?

FOL - illusions = no matter

substance = some matter

posted January 12, 2009 04:58 PM           

me leo (mama)
oldest- leo (21)
twins - taurus (19)

posted January 12, 2009 07:02 PM         

What do you hope to accomplish?

Do you think I'm going start thinking you have a grasp on reality in spite of all the evidence I've seen to the contrary?

Do you think people here are going to join arms with you, and emulate your mistaken mindset after you've already made an ass of yourself right here in this thread?

Do you think it's possible for you of all people to drag my good name down?

posted January 12, 2009 08:05 PM         

quote:

---

I mean, the amount of error in this one post is astronomical,...acoustic

---

Making unfounded, unproved accusations of error is not proof of anything acoustic...except your inability to state facts and back your comments up with something other than blither, blather, bilge, bile, bombast and bloviation. You've got your work cut out for you. Go to it.

quote:

---

If I didn't think you had a leg to stand on the last multiple times, what makes you think anything's going to change?...acoustic

---

One day acoustic, you're going to get it that it's not what you think that's important. It's what's true that's important and as I've pointed out to you numerous times, it's doubtful that even 10% of what you accept as Holy Writ is even true at all.

quote:

---

Do you think people here are going to join arms with you...acoustic

---

I'm not the one who needs a support group acoustic. That's you and you're forever reaching for others to agree with you...as if that somehow makes you "right". What that means acoustic is that you're still wallowing in South Node Cancer mode looking for positive strokes from others.

quote:

---

Do you think it's possible for you of all people to drag my good name down?...acoustic

---

Oh no acoustic, that's not my intention. I thought I made my purpose clear....."to halt the spread of ignorance".

quote:

---

Get a grip! How's that for some Capricornian management?.....acoustic

---

posted January 12, 2009 10:32 PM         

This is the Astrology Forum; with me so far?

acoustic introduced politics onto the Astrology Forum by posting the video of a leftist BBC interviewer, hereinafter referred to as "Poor Jeremy", a Taurus attempting to publicly lynch Ann Coulter...a political figure, writer and biting American satirist...and a Sag.

Prior to that, I was minding my own business and enjoying the comments posted to this thread about debate between the various signs and having a good laugh.

There is no "power trip" involved. I'm merely speaking in the language leftists understand...the only language leftist seem to understand.

posted January 12, 2009 10:33 PM         

quote:

---

I thought I made my purpose clear....."to halt the spread of ignorance".

---

Shall we measure your effectiveness? After all, what gets measured gets managed.

Jwhop's Audience...
Please give a rating or review of Jwhop's effectiveness in meeting his stated purpose of "halting the spread of ignorance" in this thread.

(I would ask you to rate him on a scale, but he doesn't do so well with interpretting that polling method.)

quote:

---

One day acoustic, you're going to get it that it's not what you think that's important.

---

One day, if reincarnation is true, and if you're lucky, you'll be sitting on my side of the computer screen dealing with your former self, and you'll witness what I witness.

quote:

---

It's what's true that's important

---

That's why you read, support, and attempt to defend Ann Coulter? I don't see a truth-seeker taking such a course.

quote:

---

I'm not the one who needs a support group acoustic. That's you and you're forever reaching for others to agree with you...as if that somehow makes you "right". What that means acoustic is that you're still wallowing in South Node Cancer mode looking for positive strokes from others.

---

You don't seem to understand that it's other people who are our mirrors. What do your mirrors say to you? Do they say that you're a reasonable, objective, mature person, or do they say something different? What do you get praised for? What do you get opposed on? What do you make of the data? You don't like the data, so you rationalize.

You need to look at that Sun and Mercury square Uranus as well as the Sun conjunct Mercury itself. There's so much you clearly don't understand about your personality (that you ironically project on to your detractors).

For the record, having people agree with your perspective is a good thing. Granted, it's not if it's at the detriment of their own perspective, but as long as everyone is thinking independently, agreement is a confirmation. In any negotiation one typically needs agreement in order for progress to be made. If you understood this, you would seek consensus as a means to an end. You don't... to your own detriment. But what do I know? I'm just a popular Capricorn.