posted October 10, 2012 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
yes but there is ego and there is ego...without one we don't really function, it is the goals that ego sets that interest me. of course most politicians already know before they get to the white house that they are not going to be "king" and they are not going to be able to do whatever they want.

i wonder about some though. so used to being the BOSS they may not be able to conceive of "checks and balances" as a way of life.

---

The one who, always, says he has NO ego, may have the biggest

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 11, 2012 12:38 AM            

I almost always post commentary and then use a source or sources so you..and others can track the reasoning. Unfortunately, you usually can't follow along.

But the point is acoustic; I don't need to do that. My memory doesn't need to be refreshed and I only post sources so no one will have to take my word for what I'm saying.

posted October 11, 2012 07:08 AM            

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 11, 2012 01:10 PM            

quote:

---

Well acoustic, I did offer you the chance to explore/debate on what we each know..without resorting to outside sources...and you declined.

---

Posturing doesn't suit you, Jwhop. That's all this is.

The implication is that I would be less intelligent without the internet, and you would be more intelligent, but that's not true, is it? I can recognize when you're wrong without consulting the internet. I post things from the internet, so that EVERYONE knows it's NOT just me that finds you wrong. It's my humble gesture to everyone that it's not merely a matter of an opinion on my part that you're wrong. It's typically verifiable that you're wrong.

quote:

---

I almost always post commentary and then use a source or sources so you..and others can track the reasoning. Unfortunately, you usually can't follow along.

---

Yes, but your commentary is based upon the article you post after your commentary. You don't dream up something to talk about, and then go find the article to back it up. It's clearly the reverse.

quote:

---

But the point is acoustic; I don't need to do that. My memory doesn't need to be refreshed and I only post sources so no one will have to take my word for what I'm saying.

---

...when posting in response to something. Same as me.

The difference between us is that your sources are often as mistaken as you are, so whether you need a refresher or not, a bad bit of thinking continues to be a bad bit of thinking.

quote:

---

As for Rush, we're right.

---

posted October 12, 2012 10:26 AM            

You're attempting to equate knowledge with intelligence and that doesn't compute.

If only 10% of what you take as absolute fact were only true, you'd be a world beater acoustic. Unfortunately, you've filled up that 10% of the storage capacity most people use with illrelevance and general horseshiiit which leaves you coming off here as irrational, illogical and unreasonable. Alas!

posted October 12, 2012 12:51 PM            

quote:

---

You're attempting to equate knowledge with intelligence and that doesn't compute.

---

No. You are doing that. You think that if you could only take the internet away from me, you could beat me on the basis of knowledge. Therefore, you believe that knowledge equates with intelligence. It doesn't.

Intelligence is what informs me of what is suspect in your messages. Your intelligence isn't in the same ballpark as mine, and that's clear based upon what you believe. It's clear based upon your gullibility, and it's clear based upon your inability to assertain cause and effect.

posted October 12, 2012 01:51 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
"The one who, always, says he has NO ego, may have the biggest " ami anne

fair enough, but who is saying they have no ego?

---

It is a riddle. You can't be told the answer or it ruins it

------------------
Passion, Lust, Desire. Check out my journal

posted October 12, 2012 02:03 PM            

However acoustic, my offer to you stands. So if you want to test your knowledge..without the prop of the Internet, let me know.

Now, you're trying to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg, when you say I find an article and THEN write commentary to fit the article. You don't know that, or much of anything else acoustic so this is easy to dismiss as your usual bloviation.

And now, you make your greatest mistake of all. After equating intelligence with knowledge, you attempt to equate both with "wisdom".

You really are a confused little puppy.

Oh, and Rush is Right. You're just not intelligent enough, knowledgeable enough or wise enough to grasp that simple fact. That's 3 strikes acoustic...and you're out.

posted October 12, 2012 04:20 PM            

quote:

---

Give it up acoustic. YOU did attempt to equate intelligence with knowledge and they're 2 different attributes.

---

Classic Jwhop move to assign the other person with his own traits.

The rest of your post is nonsense.

"Without the prop of the internet," you could lie as dramatically as you desire. Explain to me how that would work in anyone's favor. We don't need you making things out materially different than they actually are or were.

Your denial of reading articles before posting commentary is obviously wrong. There's not a person here that can't decipher the fact that you read the article, and then post commentary ahead of it. Yes, I am better than a lot of people at understanding human psychology, but it doesn't take a brainiac to divine this simple truth.

posted October 12, 2012 10:00 PM            

But acoustic, I've offered you the perfect vehicle to find out what I know..and what you know..without resorting to any props...like the Internet, Cliffs Notes, Spark Notes, Cheat Sheets..etc. Given your comments, I'd think you'd want to jump all over my offer.

Just trying to help you out here acoustic

posted November 09, 2012 09:15 AM            

quote:

---

Rush Limbaugh and "the Elves"

Surprising precisely no one, the syndicated radio host didn't take Tuesday night's decision well, saying Wednesday: "I went to bed last night thinking we're outnumbered. I went to bed last night thinking all this discussion we'd had about this election being the election that will tell us whether or not we've lost the country. I went to bed last night thinking we've lost the country. I don't know how else you look at this

---

quote:

---

Limbaugh then moved on to an "Obama-as-Santa Claus" metaphor:

"[Obama supporters] think that the only way they're going to have a chance for anything is if somebody comes along and takes from somebody else and gives it to them. Santa Claus! And it's hard to beat Santa Claus. Especially it's hard to beat Santa Claus when the alternative is you be your own Santa Claus. 'Oh, no, I'm not doing that. What do you mean, I have to be my own Santa Claus? No, no. No, no, no. I want to get up every day and go to the tree. You're the elves,' meaning us."

---

Now, don`t we all feel "enlightened"? http://tinyurl.com/bglgcwy

posted November 09, 2012 09:22 AM            

Americans love centrist arguments and facts with a little bit of shifts to right or left.
Rush knows only extreme, far right lies. I think he is the single most pathetic voice in America, and it must suck to be Rush Limbaugh or a Rush Limbaugh fan after a thumping Obama win which Rush so confidently said would never happen. According to the Bible, Rush is a "False Prophet"

posted November 09, 2012 06:44 PM            

I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

I found him SO biased that, like Sean Hannity, I can't take him seriously. There is a difference between reporting truth and reporting what you want to be true or what you want people to believe.

posted November 09, 2012 08:52 PM            

Sadder still, is like Linda said, there are nuggets of truth and and he has charisma & intelligence enough to be a solver of problems rather than a problem.

posted November 16, 2012 06:27 PM            

Ron Paul gave a speech and Rush took a sound bite from it devoid of context and twisted it to say the exact opposite...and a Ron Paul supporter actually believed what Rush said (though he did say he was surprised they were in agreement, which I also thought surprising and why I bothered to read it only to find out Rush lied again, which is not a surprise after all) and, even worse, felt guided by what Rush said rather than Ron Paul said.