LAT Falsely Attacks FNC's O'Reilly
On Friday (2/4/11), the Los Angeles Times' Patrick Goldstein published a blog post with the title, "Bill O'Reilly on science: Why is Earth the only planet with a moon?"
Well, it would be somewhat noteworthy if O'Reilly actually asked such a question, considering the fact that most people know that several other planets in our solar system have moons. The problem is, as an accompanying video clearly shows, O'Reilly neither said nor implied any such thing.
In a weekly "Backstage Conversation" video for his website, O'Reilly responded to a viewer's question about previous comments the host had made on his television show. In debating the existence of God, O'Reilly had essentially claimed that the existence of so much order, direction, and design on our planet - the phenomena of tides, for example - is a strong case for the existence of God. (This is basically the teleological argument, an argument that may be above Goldstein's grade level.)
In the course of his answer to a presumed atheist from Beverly Hills, Florida, O'Reilly - looking a bit tired, by the way - seemed to ask why Mars and Venus do not have a moon, yet Earth does. Well, while Venus does not have any moons, Mars does indeed have two tiny moons that orbit it. But O'Reilly is correct to imply that Earth is the only planet in our solar system with only one moon. In fact, according to NASA, our moon is quite uncommon in the universe.
Yet, most importantly, by no means did O'Reilly ever say or imply that no other planets have moons. As the bleary-eyed Goldstein wrote, "Here, watch for yourself."
Goldstein's headline and post are simply bogus.
Video transcript:
O'REILLY: David from Beverly Hills, Florida: 'What do you mean when you refer to the tides when you are asked about the existence of God? Science explains the tides ... the moon's gravity pulls on the ocean.'
O.K. How did the moon get there? How did the moon get there? Look. You pinheads who attack me for this, you guys are just desperate. How did the moon get there? How did the sun get there? How did it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it. How come? Why not? How did it get here?
How did that little amoeba get here, crawl out there? How did it do it? C'mon. You have order in this universe, you have an order in the universe. The tide comes in, tide goes out. O.K. Yeah. The moon does it. Fine. How did the moon get there? Who put it there? Did it just happen?
If we have existence, if we have life on Earth, how come they don't have it on the other planets? What, are we just lucky? Some meteor do this? (Explosion sound.) C'mon, I see this stuff. It's desperate. As I've said many times: It takes more faith to not believe, and to think this was all luck - all this human body, the intricacies of it, and everything else, all luck - than it does to believe in a deity.
At the very least, Goldstein and the Times owe Mr. O'Reilly an apology and a correction.
-- Dave Pierre is the author of the book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church. Dave is also the creator of TheMediaReport.com and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.org.
- Dave Pierre's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Big Bang Theory...
Submitted by dmntd1 on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:08pm.
I love how we're still debating whether God created the universe, or if a Big Bang did. Why couldn't both have happened? God opened his mouth, and spoke forth a universe. It undoubtedly appeared with a rather Big Bang.....
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
My thoughts exactly
Submitted by wiwf on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:03am.
My thoughts exactly
Big Bang?
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:25am.
First there was nothing, then it blew up.
It all amounts to mental masturbation. We are here, we pick a story (belief) and live with it.
Big Bang, it’s all an accident, so there is no meaning to life, so whatever we decide is most pleasant for us we do.
With creation we are here because it was all created by a loving God who has a plan for our lives, and in the course of this life we make a choice about our eternal destiny.
Look around you most of the problems are caused by those who chose and fervently believe the BB(or believe nothing at all).
(Yes I know some who chose creation cause some nasty problems - but they are usually apostates!)
The core of life is values!
The LAT is frantically
Submitted by Van Halen on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 9:18pm.
The LAT is frantically leading the charge against O'Reilly because he's going to smack the hell out of the competition ratings-wise tomorrow night when he interviews the King of All Epic Fail.
typical
Submitted by forest on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:01pm.
This is what we get when "journalists" get their infromation from Media Matters, the Daily Show and HuffPo.
And they do. They won't admit it, but they do.
They consume those sources, and they try to repackage it to sound more serious and respectable. It's kinda pathetic, but it got them through college, so why not?
Earth and Moon, are really binary planets.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:06pm.
The Earths moon is the only moon in the solar system, that has more gravitational attraction to the Sun than to the planet it's orbiting.
Fun little fact ea.
BOR was talking about tides.
"Why is there a high tide on Earth when the moon is overhead, and another high tide about 12 1/2 hours later?"
This event will not happen on Mars and/or Venus
You Didn't Build That.
upcountrywater
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:28pm.
Regarding your last comment - maybe I'm misreading you - are you saying that tidal forces only occur on Earth?
Lunar tides don't occur on Venus.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:00pm.
Well, lunar tides, those which are caused by a moon, certainly don't occur on Venus. But they do, oddly enough, occur on Pluto, and Pluto isn't even a planet anymore!
Also, the lunar tides on Mars are so weak that they can't even stop the two small moons from being in a degenerating orbit. Those moons will, some day, impact the planet and then, WOW! What a sight that would be!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Hydrodyn DM, Tidal forces are all over the place.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:15pm.
The tidal forces on Mars due to the 2 small moons, are much smaller than the tidal forces on Earth. With 2 moons of different mass orbiting at different rates the tidal effects must be almost impossible to predict
And hay no oceans.
EDIT: Tidal forces effect land masses.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountrywater
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:44pm.
A three body gravitational problem can't be solved analytically, but doing it computationally isn't that big a deal. It's the kind of thing you could assign for an upper level undergrad project.
hydro,That would yield
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:20am.
as many different answers as the number of grad students.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountrywater
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:29am.
Not under my expert tutelage.
Hydro
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 12:49am.
Is that because you teach without a liberal bend?
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:52pm.
That ... and I actually know some physics.
Two High Tides each day
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:43am.
Now that I've made a religious post to this thread I'll show my science chops. e e
The earth and moon are a two body system, the moon doesn't orbit the each so much as the earth and moon orbit each other. If they were equal mass they would orbit a common center half way between them.
The tide on the "non-moon" side is caused by the centrifuge forces of the spinning two body system.
I'd asked this question of PHDs when I worked in aerospace and got only shrugs (pissed them off because a stupid Masters stumped them - but not on purpose) when I left aerospace to teach Jr. Hi. I found it in a book in the library in a book on space (a 3rd/4th grade book). Demonstrates how spotty education can be!
The Coriolis Effect
Submitted by Rukus on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:49pm.
Combined with gravity of the moon, voila'! A wide range of differing tides! Science rocks! : )
Rukus, It really depends on the mass of the moon....
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:41am.
So how much does the moon weigh...
Depending on when. Is that a full or half full moon?
____________________
The following bugs me(red article below)
My dad placed addresses on his model planes and most that were lost, arrived back days later due to the graces of conscientious American citizens.
A suspected US spy drone crashed near the south Yemen town of Loder on Tuesday, a police official said, as witnesses said Al-Qaeda forces made off with the plane's wreckage.
The drone crashed in Jahayn village near Loder, in Yemen's Abyan province where Al-Qaeda has a strong presence, and was found by local residents, the official told AFP.
Witnesses told AFP that Al-Qaeda forces were able to seize what remained of the drone.
Like that F-117 bagged in Clinton's Yugoland.
Reverse engineering comes right back... WOW jobs for Chinese
You Didn't Build That.
tides don't moon me..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:44am.
!
You Didn't Build That.
Setting aside the debate over cosmic design...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:17pm.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict Dr. Craig will not be adding O'Reilly to his pantheon of eminent teleologicists [Tennant, Bertocci, Hackett, etc.] anytime soon.
Jer
Jer..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:18pm.
I'm sitting this one out. Leaving religion out of it.. I listened to O'Reilly, and he really seemed to have no science sense of how the moon's gravity pulled the tides.
I need 5-10 minutes with the big guy - tops.
(:~> gary
I'm with you, Gary...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:34pm.
Save me a seat.
Jer
everyone knows its magic.
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:25am.
everyone knows its magic.
Why is the moon moving away?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 10:54pm.
Here's a question that the LAT can't answer: Why is the moon moving away from the Earth? Well, you'd try to get away too if you had to look down upon LA once a day, every day.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Bill O'Reilly dug himself a
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:27pm.
Bill O'Reilly dug himself a deeper hole, with his why doesn't Mars have a moon, response. I don't know how anybody could defend his basic misunderstanding of how the tides work. And as far as the tides being proof of God, that is a very weak argument. Papa Bear has had a rough week, http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/373357/february-03-2011/crisis-in-egypt---anderson-cooper---bill-o-reilly http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-january-27-2011/bill-o-reilly-defends-his-nazi-analogies
Ok but!
Submitted by tvhall on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 11:48am.
The tides are but one of more than 50 physical parameters of the earth/universe have to be what they are or life could not exist on earth. Chances of all of this "just happening" are vanishingly small.
It takes more faith to believe in the Big Bang and evolution than it does to believe in God!
But it didn't just happen. It
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:58pm.
But it didn't just happen. It took billions of years. It only "just happens" when you explain it through God(s). So its more believable that God created all this on earth and in the universe in just six days, than it is to believe it took billions years for this planet to sustain human life?
tvhall
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:25pm.
The only way to know how probable something is within a system is to have a complete knowledge of that system.
If I asked you what the probability of a "2" coming up on a role of a die is without telling you how many sides the die has, you couldn't answer.
Since we don't have a complete understanding of the universe or of what conditions are necessary for life (any life - not just carbon based), there is no way to know how likely or unlikely life is in the universe.
We are also limited in our ability to say whether there is life on other planets and how common or uncommon it is given the size of the universe.
Look, I'm not saying Big Bang is fact and Creationism is false but trying to argue which seems more sensible based on appeals to chance is pretty weak in my opinion. The fact is that there are big holes in our empirical understanding of life and the universe and what may seem unlikely may, in fact, turn out to be pretty common once we've acquired more understanding.
They're not moons
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:34pm.
Mars doesn't have any moons. Those are trapped asteroids which, by the way, will eventually crash into Mars.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Really, Mars doesn't have any
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:11pm.
Really, Mars doesn't have any moons, anything you want to provide to support that ridiculous statement. Because NASA disagrees with you, http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Mars&Display=Moons.
Whatever. Look at that Stupid Flag flying in your front yard.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:00pm.
From the link, YOU, the Idiot, with the Stupid Flag Flapping on his Flagpole, posted here----
The moons appear to be made of carbon-rich rock mixed with ice and may be captured asteroids.
Whaaaaaaaaahhhh? Captured Asteroids?
YOUR FRELLING LINK.
IDIOT.
Now what did my good friend CobraMan say?
Those are trapped asteroids...
Saaaaaaaaaa-lute!
They used to be asteroids,
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:33pm.
They used to be asteroids, but they are moons now, since they orbit the planet they are called moons, notice how NASA called them moon many times. Notice how that sentence starts, "the MOONS" Whaaaaaaaaahhh? The moons? But if they are asteroids why would NASA and every science book call them moons if they really are asteroids like you and your good friend Cobraman say.
bob, Pluto was once a planet..
Submitted by upcountrywater on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 5:57pm.
Not anymore....
BTW You lose...
bob.............. ZERO
Cobraman ...1
The Vet .......1
You Didn't Build That.
You can't argue facts, Mars
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:12pm.
You can't argue facts, Mars has moons, two moons. Pluto has nothing to do with this. It is amazing how more than one person could say that Mars doesn't have any moons, and that people will defend and support what is obviously false.
Stop whining little diaper troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:22pm.
You made the link to a site that disputed what you yourself said. Spare us the public spectacle of you thrashing around digging inside your diaper trying to relieve yourself of the burden that is your burning itchy diaper rash.
We don't care.
Only an idiot would link to a site that makes him the fool in front of the entire planet. But yeah, that is you, ain't it.
Actually it didn't, the NASA
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:41pm.
Actually it didn't, the NASA website does not say Mars doesn't have moons, this isn't that hard Mars has two moons, Bill O'Reilly was wrong and you are wrong. Only an idiot would dispute a fact, only a idiot would continue to claim that Mars doesn't have moons.
For the record you agree that the Earth is a planet, that's a relieve, now if only you could understand that Mars has moons.
Whatever Retard. You linked it. Not me.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 6:57pm.
The moons appear to be made of carbon-rich rock mixed with ice and may be captured asteroids.
C A P T U R E D A S T E R O I D S.
Maybe you could go back in time and unlink your linkies. Then you won't be a retard that scours the internet looking to back up his Stupid, then finds a site, carelessly fails to read it, puts on the linky linkies, and get spanked so hard by his own link, he momentarily affects the tides, much like a moon of say, Earth or Jupiter.
Keep flailing little retard. I did not link to a site that proved I am an idiot. THAT WAS YOU.
The "moons", NASA calls them
Submitted by bob loblaw on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:23pm.
The "moons", NASA calls them moons because they are moons, not asteroids. They may be captured asteroids, but they are moons, what don't you get about this, this isn't difficult. Mars has moons, and before you go around start calling people retards you should probably understand that Mars has moons.
I'm not the one flailing, you are.
Try to follow me here. NASA and science calls the big rocks that orbit Mars moons because they are natural satellites that orbit the planet, that is the definition of a moon. They may have been asteroids a long time ago, but they are moons now. For example you don't call ice, water simply because the ice use to be water. Again this isn't that difficult, Mars has two moons.
What is a moon?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 1:07am.
Are All Moons Really Moons?
But there are objects that are currently classified as moons, that actually may be better classified as some other type of object. The classic example raised is the moons of Mars, and similarly those similar ones that orbit the outer planets, that appear to be captured asteroids. While we call them moons, there are those that argue that a new classification of object should be created. Thereby separating the moons of the solar system into those that we readily think of -- the large round ones like our Moon -- and the small irregularly shaped ones that are probably gravitationally bound asteroids.
We Are The 53%
That has to hurt. bob blowblow loves him the Stupid.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 1:06pm.
If only trollies would tell the truth, why.. well then... See.. Yeah, they would not be trollies would they?
It is called sourcing little Dead Zippers style troll. Next time you want to put the smackdown on another user, make sure ---
1. You are correct.
2. You own links do not show you to be incorrect.
Just how thick is your skull?
Submitted by bob loblaw on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 2:52pm.
Just how thick is your skull? Mars has moons, please never sign up to be on Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader so that you don't get embarrassed. I am correct, you are not. My link called them moons many times in fact, I think you should probably listen to NASA on this because i'm sure they know more about space than you do. Though I will give you this, your head is up Uranus.
Whatever nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 2:57pm.
Looks like Dead Zippers diaper is overflowing again.
From your link,
Submitted by mamabear on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 6:56pm.
From your link, Vet:
Definition of a MoonThere is actually no strict definition of what a moon is, but there are some commonalities between those objects considered moons, also called satellites. They all are:
Saying "Mars has no moons" is clearly incorrect. Saying "Mars' moons are actually captured asteroids and thus different from our moon. One day they will crash into Mars." is correct. So Cobraman's statement was half incorrect. Bob loblaw's statements have been true, though Cobraman probably didn't deserve quite as much scorn as Bob gave him.
I know you love calling people liars and idiots, but no one in this exchange is being either. If you just calm down and wait, someone will say something that is actually stupid or wrong very soon, I'm sure.
For a teacher, your comprehension sucks.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:13am.
That didn't come from anything that the Vet linked.
The Vet never said they weren't moons.
Bob did say that "The "moons", NASA calls them moons because they are moons, not asteroids." which is false.
If you just calm down and wait, someone will say something that is actually stupid or wrong very soon, I'm sure.
ROFLMAO, talk about a prediction that comes true as soon as you push "save"!
Moon is a loose term, that has had it's definition change over time. The correct term would be "a natural satellite"
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:23am.
"The Vet never said they weren't moons."
Then what was The Vet arguing in this post?
Hydro
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:51am.
I'm going to get technical in this answer.
He never said they weren't anything.
He did say what they were acording to the link that the troll linked.
I know it's just semantics, but it's fun to argue none the less.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:08am.
Then what exactly was The Vet calling him an "idiot" about?
Look - I'm all for defending a bud online, but sometimes you have to admit they stepped in it.
The Vet (and Cobra) did in this case (despite The Vet's contention that they were just joshin').
Freebie. We were cross posting.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:25am.
I am looking through my posts and I am not seeing where I stepped in it. ARE YOU LISTENING?
All I ever said was this - THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTED HIM AND PARTIALLY SUPPORTED COBRAMAN'S STATEMENT.
I AM TELLING YOU FOR THE LAST TIME.
GET OFF MY BACK. NOW. THIS IS SICK AND TWISTED THE WAY YOU ARE ATTACKING ME WHEN YOU ARE DEAD WRONG.
You do it again.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:11pm.
Lying I mean.
THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTED HIM AND PARTIALLY SUPPORTED COBRAMAN'S STATEMENT.
How did his link contradict his statement?
Pack Sand.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:56pm.
Pack it hard. Pack it tight. And keep on pounding until those sissy knuckles of yours bleed.
Caught in another lie then.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:01pm.
No denial. Keep them coming.
Hydro
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:24am.
because bob loblaw is a confirmed troll.
And the Vet is doing what he does (best?), getting trolls to have a mental breakdown and say stupid things and get banned.
I will concede that cobra was incorrect when he said they aren't moons, but the Vet never said they weren't anything. And the troll said they weren't asteroids, even though in his own link is says that they probably are.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:50am.
Basing a nitpicky point on the wording in one webpage is just weak.
Asteroids orbit the Sun. The objects orbiting Mars are not asteroids.
What more is there to discuss about it? CobraMan and The Vet were wrong.
I don't care if bob is as troll or not - he was right on this one.
This has become beyond ridiculous.
Well that is a good reason to throw away goodwill with others.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:33am.
...he was right on this one. --- Oh goody. And you were wrong about me THWICE and oh fudge I have not even caught up with all your posts. That is a good reason to attack me and be DEAD WRONG in the process, a troll was right for once. Yes. That was sarcasm with dripping icicles from ONE torqued Vet.
Whoops!
CobraMan and The Vet were wrong. --- I am fairly sure CobraMan was laying a hit on a troll just to spite him. Only he can answer. But, I AM CALLING YOU OUT. This is pathological now. SHOW US ALL WHERE I WAS WRONG. Both Denny and I have told you more than a few times, I only smacked the troll with a Stupid Stick based upon his post. I never said it Mars did not have moons.
4 times you viscious little snit.
You are right about one thing.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:04pm.
This is pathological now.
Pack Sand.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:10pm.
Go answer up for your 38 lies in one blog. Only a Sissy like you attempts a pile on.
pegged.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:24pm.
38 lies? Go to the forum and see how you argue that you didn't point out 38 lies.
I said ANSWER Idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:53pm.
Thinking is hard for you, isn't it?
answer 3 : something done in response or reaction <his only answer was to walk out>
Actually
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:17pm.
you said "answer up". And that phrase (with "answer" meant to be a verb) isn't widely used in English. So what do you want me to do?
Pack Sand.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:29pm.
Only an idiot would ask that question.
Idiot claims I said would instead of answer and then fills his diaper and whines when I point it out. And his diaper is already overflowing because no one will go to the forum and tell the word bully to stop being so mean.Yeah, idiot, it is my fault you confused would and answer. It is my fault because I had to point it out to you. So whine because I did a quick search on the definition of answer. Of course, I would not have to look at all if you did not keep bringing Stupid after Stupid after Stupid to these premises. Here you go little dense load of stupid -
answer a : to be or make oneself responsible or accountable
Maybe I would not have to keep showing you definitions if you stopped putting your Stupid on full display with pink neon lights. I AM NOT YOUR TEACHER. YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO LEARN. But like every other idiot troll, you think volume passes as wit. So you keep spewing.
Nobody
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 7:55am.
has even used the word "would" in the 3 preceding posts.
Idiot claims I said would instead of answer
Is a lie. Another one.
What I said is that you used a verb that I think doesn't exist in Englsh: "answer up".
Troggy the suck troll is wicked smart.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 8:33am.
Troggy the suck troll has spammed my every post with drivel about white flags, X+Y drivel, called me a liar, a coward, 60, 70 posts of nothing but pure drivel. Nonsense only a troll could come up with, pure anger because I showed the world his stupid and lies. Then he followed me here and did the same thing. Everyone can see it. Nonsense posts designed to bait me into a long series of posts where all he does is sport nonsense designed to get me to insult him. Here on this page, he had what 15 posts with nothing but taunts. And now look at this crap he has pushed here just to get me to keep engaged in his whiny drivel.
1. taunts me with the pathological quote.
2. whines about the forum and begs people to suppport him
3. whines because I brought a noun definition when he demanded a verb
4. Now once again points out a error in my post because I got SICK of his shit and HARASSMENT. Oh dear, I misplaced a word because I am sick to death of this troll posting nothing but pure shit and drivel trying to catch me in some kind of insignificant typo or grammatical error so he can claim victory and tell everyone that wipes out his EVERY SINGLE LIE.
YOU GO SUCK TROLL. YOU GOT THE VET TO MA|KE ANOTHER ERROR IN GRAMMAR BY TAUNTING AND HARRASSING HIM WITH 50 POSTS IN ONE DAY.
YES. THAT GIVES YOU A RIGHT TO CALL ME A LIAR.
THANK FRIGGIN' HYDRODYNDM. THIS IS THE KIND OF SHIT THAT COMES OUT WHEN YOU GIVE TROLLS FREE REIN TO ENDLESSLY HARASS AND TAUNT ME UNTIL I MAKE THE TINIEST OF MISTAKES AND THEY CALL IT A LIE.
And it works just fine
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 9:12am.
Everyone can see it. Nonsense posts designed to bait me into a long series of posts where all he does is sport nonsense designed to get me to insult him.
Is it really that easy to control you? Because you did exactly what according to you I wanted you to do.
THIS IS THE KIND OF SHIT THAT COMES OUT WHEN YOU GIVE TROLLS FREE REIN TO ENDLESSLY HARASS AND TAUNT ME UNTIL I MAKE THE TINIEST OF MISTAKES AND THEY CALL IT A LIE.
You really thought you were the only one that had this privilege?
Dammit hydrodynDM.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:16am.
This is the second time. Why are you harassing me and letting one of the most antithetical trolls we have seen here walk away scot free.
It would be one thing if you were correct but you are DOING IT NEEDLESSLY and and and and YOU ARE DEAD WRONG. Why?
Look at the link. I DID NOT PROVIDE THAT LINK. I simply quoted from the same link the LowBlow idiot provided. The link FROM NASA. And I NEVER, are you listening? I NEVER said weren't moons in that post.
R E A D I T A G A I N.
I don't know what pathology you got that drives you to attack me but you need to knock it off. I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls. Whatever it is that you drives you to attack me and come to the defense of troll is starting to get sickening. And you can't even be right when you do it.
NASA said they may be captured asteroids. I repeated it with a quesiton mark because it COUNTERED what the troll said when he himself LINKED it. IT WAS NOT MY LINK.
Seriously, you want to attack me. GET IN FRIGGIN' LINE. IT IS A LONG ONE. And it moves slow. But I am telling you again. YOU BETTER MAKE DAMN SURE YOU ARE CORRECT. And this time you weren't.
And this pathology where you whine about us possibly calling you a troll simply because you disagree is sickening as well. KNOCK IT OFF. Reasonable people can disagree. Reasonable people can also spot trolls and treat them as such.
So for the final time, GET OFF MY BACK. I took it to PM last time. Now I am bringing into the open.
GET THE HELL OFF MY BACK NOW.
You want to attack me. BE CORRECT.
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:45am.
Apparently, unlike you, I don't decide who I post to based on the status of the poster - liberal, conservative or "troll".
If I see a comment that I feel like commenting on, I do.
Pretty simple.
Some folks who have been around here for a while seem pretty cool with that. Maybe you aren't one of them.
If you consider my couple of posts here "harassing" then you have thinner skin that I thought.
And the only thing that motivated me to comment to your post was me thinking that you were wrong. Nothing more. Nothing less. I've done it to others and most don't seem to have a hissy fit about it.
Yes, let's look back at your post.
Why exactly where you calling the poster an idiot?
Well, here you content that you were just suggesting that bob's own post "partially supported" CobraMan's point.
Funny that you don't actually say that in your post linked above.
But whatever.
I've been here about as long as you, Vet. I get your posting style. It isn't like mine, but whatever.
But don't think for a moment that you telling me how I should or shouldn't act when it comes you has any influence on me - at all.
Whatever. I told you to be RIGHT before you attack me.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:07am.
What is wrong with telling people that now?
AND I WILL BE A DROP DEAD LONG LOST SON OF A MOTHER LOVING HOBO if you did not DO IT AGAIN.
hydrodynDM: ...you were just suggesting that bob's own post "partially supported" CobraMan's point.
DID I SAY THAT?
Let's quote me, and I only have done this with trolls prior to meeting the braintrust that is hydrodynDM.
The Vet that hydrodyDM now hates for some reason: THE TROLLS OWN LINK CONTRADICTED HIM AND PARTIALLY SUPPORTED COBRAMAN'S STATEMENT.
What is the difference there? Huh? You tell me Mister I got a PhD and you don't. Did you accurately state what I said? Huh? You are harassing me. You tell me. Did you, the professor that teaches what again? Did you accurately paraphrase what I said.
NO.
You did not.
Was it on purpose?
Because he hate me?
Now tell me what the difference was.
Whoops. I see it.
I said the troll's LINK partially supported CobraMan. You claimed I said his POST partially supported CobraMan
Seriously, you are sorely testing my patience.
I said if you want to attack me - BE CORRECT. And little braintrust man that has a bad day and takes it out on someone you thinks is too mean to the poor trollies, YOU WERE NOT CORRECT AGAIN.
And again, you misrepresent, I won't say lie, you misrepresent what I said in order to make me out to be something I am not.
Why?
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:23am.
See reply below.
Capt. UnderPants:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 10:45am.
Doubtless you know your own Mom best...
Piss off.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:46pm.
I don't need a 140 time liar throwing insults at me like that. Where are that Admins when this little shit gets away with this?
You coward.
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 1:15pm.
Again calling for admins because you can't handle it.
Last time you had a bad day. And I forgave you.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:37am.
Now you are giving me a bad day. And trolls try to do that all the frellin' time. One difference. I thought you were smart.
Apparently, unlike you, I don't decide who I post to based on the status of the poster - liberal, conservative or "troll". --- So now you have read my every post and know what I decide?
If I see a comment that I feel like commenting on, I do. --- And attack me twice whilst being WRONG both times.
Pretty simple. --- Yes. It is. You can't even be correct in attacking me.
Some folks who have been around here for a while seem pretty cool with that. Maybe you aren't one of them.--- RIght. I did not attack you and still I managed to be correct.
If you consider my couple of posts here "harassing" then you have thinner skin that I thought. --- Here? Here now? This is the second time you have come after me. Are you saying these things on purpose?
And the only thing that motivated me to comment to your post was me thinking that you were wrong. Nothing more. Nothing less. I've done it to others and most don't seem to have a hissy fit about it. --- And YOU were wrong. I am able to admit I am wrong on those few occasions it happens. But you seem to enjoy long screeds that say, I really don't know what they say.
Yes, let's look back at your post. --- Let's see, you reread my posts and still get them wrong. That ain't good at all.
Why exactly where you calling the poster an idiot? --- Well, for starters, this user is insulting contributors while using the word Bitch. You find with that are you? His every post in the 2+ weeks he has been here has shown him to be an, SURPRISE, idiot. That is why I call him an idiot. WOULD YOU LIKE A BREAKDOWN? I can do it. Won't be quick. But I can do it. Here are a few - the collected lies and stupid of ---- troglodyt 39 lies, Garlock 20 lies, j. frank wilson 144 lies, 007memo 110 lies. This user that you are supporting IS an idiot. Based upon his history. Have YOU read his posts?
Well, here you content that you were just suggesting that bob's own post "partially supported" CobraMan's point. --- Already countered in another post.
Funny that you don't actually say that in your post linked above. --- Yep. Because YOU did not get it correct.
But whatever. --- Dismissing me when I was CORRECT. But whatever...
I've been here about as long as you, Vet. I get your posting style. It isn't like mine, but whatever. --- So. I let plenty of users go that I don't agree with. I don't attack them and be WRONG in the process.
But don't think for a moment that you telling me how I should or shouldn't act when it comes you has any influence on me - at all.--- BULL. BULL. BULL. I told you to GET OFF MY BACK. Now I am calling you a liar. I did not tell you how you should or shouldn't act. Snit.
@Denny
Submitted by mamabear on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 7:33pm.
You're right, that was your link! But I never said the Vet claimed they weren't moons. He's carefully not making any statement about what they are, just calling other people liars and idiots when they aren't wrong. They are moons, now. They were asteroids, before. Some people think they should be reclassified, but until they are, bob loblaw's statement was correct. Cobra Man's statement was half wrong.
It's a pretty simple issue, and I think the Vet seriously jumped the gun. Maybe Bob Loblaw is a jerk, but he isn't wrong about moons. Maybe it's the teacher in me, but if you want to have an effect on people, you should distinguish between good and bad behavior-- or wrong and right answers. Reward one and punish the other, and you'll make a difference. Just yell randomly at people regardless of what they do, and you will be ignored while looking like a jerk yourself.
mamabear
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 7:40pm.
I just posted a link in the Forums (Off Topic)....right up your alley.
Why don't you go defend those abortionists? You know, to save the children from pain and whatnot?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
You know the easiest way to
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 9:02am.
You know the easiest way to tell I'm right on an issue here? When people who dislike me can come up with nothing more useful to say than "ABORTION!"
I see
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 9:31am.
You can't defend it.
You, a well-known abortion proponent, won't defend it.
How utterly silly you liberals are. I hopped into this discussion to specifically get your attention, because I wanted YOU to see that Forum and hear what you had to say about it, and you chicken out with some nonsensical "this is how I know I'm right" nonsense.
You're not right, you're just afraid.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Shut up Idiot.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 8:30pm.
You are another half formed nitwit that walks in here hauling a dumptruck of Stupid. Like the idiot you are, you claim it is my link. Then when corrected, still hauling that Stupid, you still manage to muck it up.
You lie and piss and moan about me every chance you get, then get other troll losers to come in a carry on the attack.
BULL - But I never said the Vet claimed they weren't moons. ---- Then who were you addressing?
From your link, Vet: ... Saying "Mars has no moons" is clearly incorrect. ...
My dear sweetest Vet, Not saying you said that but I want to address you and issue a correction about what you said but clearly I am talking about someone else even though the salutation in my letter was addressed to you as well as the envelope it was contained therin but seriously, I am correcting someone else not what you said even though you were clearly in the wrong. Yours truly, the trollie that corrected, dang, no, no, no, did not correct what you said.
And unlike the lying hydrodynDM, I do ignore you. The only time I usually respond to something you have said is when you go on the offensive to incorrectly try to correct something I have said, even though really you responded to my post but were talking to someone else. And then you get some trollie to carry on the attack because I am picking on a girl trollie and trollie chivalry must be upheld.
That little snit hydrodynDM may say I call half of the people here trolls, just like you whine because I point out liars, but there are only a handful of people here not banned that I TRULY refer as trolls. YOU are one. There rest are troglodyt, balboa, Garlock, j. frank wilson, goldbar when he makes his yearly appearance, and this Dead Zippers' 20th account, bob blowhard.
That is 7. So yes you lying snit hydrodynDM, that must be almost half of the accounts registered at NewsBusters, all 15 of them.
Now pack sand hippiebear. You are not my troll and I have told you time and time again not to respond to me. Go harass the troll bashers assigned to you.
The statement you made that I
Submitted by mamabear on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 9:00am.
The statement you made that I felt the need to correct was not about moons. It was about Bob Loblaw being wrong. He wasn't wrong. Therefore, without saying anything about the moons themselves, you managed to be wrong in your attack on him.
I think I'm with Hydro-- who someone is does not affect whether a statement they made is right or wrong. You could post a thousand links, one of which proves that Bob Loblaw is Htiler reincarnated, and it still wouldn't make his statement about the moons wrong.
That's the nice thing about facts.
bob lob, The point is this. Here is a quote from the blog post.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:14pm.
Yet, most importantly, by no means did O'Reilly ever say or imply that no other planets have moons.
GET THAT.
The asteroid sized "moons" that orbit mars, do not effect the oceans' tides on Mars.
Another thing we have only discovered 2 moons on Mars could be many more "moons" the size of pumpkins, orbiting mars.
Because there are no oceans, there is no littoral zone.
That is what BOR was talking about, the zone bewteen high and low tides.
And yes Pluto is important, because out of the blue some group of "scientists" got together one day, and said Pluto is no longer a planet.
So what do you name the three things that orbit the non planet Pluto?
Pluto and Charon have been called a double planet because Charon is larger compared to Pluto (half its diameter and an eighth its mass) than any other moon is to a planet; indeed Charon is massive enough that, despite their proximity, Pluto orbits the system's barycenter at a point outside its surface.
Even wikipedia hasn't updated the "non planet" status of Pluto (in this article).
It's all about ocean tides....
You Didn't Build That.
upcountrywater
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:23pm.
In using quotes, are you implying that they aren't scientists?
Hydro, Yea, at that moment in time they were acting
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:20am.
political and not very scientific.
Scientists voting is a consensus. Consensus is not science. Ok scientists can vote.
You stated elsewhere on this thread that Planets and Asteroids orbit the Sun. It now looks like you can add Dwarf Planets to that list.
Pluto is now called a dwarf planet are the bodies that orbit it called dwarf moons?
Pluto moon Charon is much larger than the moons that orbit Mars.
Maybe we should have a thread vote consensus, and see if we can vote moons of Mars off the island.
According to the new definition, a full-fledged planet is an object that orbits the sun and is large enough to have become round due to the force of its own gravity.
What kind of scientific word is "round". Is the Earth round, no not exactly.
You Didn't Build That.
upcountrywater
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:29am.
"... are the bodies that orbit it called dwarf moons?'
If you want. Maybe moonlet?
See my post below about how important or unimportant these kinds of labels are.
hydrodynDM, I agree with you as to how unimportant labels are.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:03am.
I read your post to MD below, works for me :-)
Looks like you get to toss in some more calculating...
It has even been suggested that the Earth Moon system should be considered as a double planet.
You Didn't Build That.
Moons versus Asteroids
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 8:59pm.
For the love of God people.
An asteroids orbits the Sun.
A moon orbits a planet or smaller body which is larger than itself.
Mars has moons that are thought to have been asteroids (when they orbited the Sun) but which are now moons (since they now orbit a planet larger than themselves).
Love ya big guy.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 1:21pm.
We all agree. CobraMan just threw out a little troll bait to snag a troll. An incredibly stupid troll that fancies himself smarter than Mr. O'Reilly. See the troll made a post to insult Mr. O'Reilly. We were just smacking him around a little. And it was fun because the link he provided actually disagreed with him. See Denny Crane's link above as to why it is so much fun pounding on this troll.
That's a great defense
Submitted by bob loblaw on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 2:52pm.
That's a great defense someone says something that is false and you say it just a trap. I really can't believe you are calling people stupid even though you think Mars doesn't have moons. You are wrong, and hopefully you know it. If you didn't notice but the link provided by Denny Crane says "while we call them moons" this is talking about Mars. You are wrong, admit it.
Whatever Dead Zippers.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 2:58pm.
Looks like nwahs diaper is overflowing again.
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:04pm.
No.
You and Cobra were wrong.
End of story.
Call me a troll.
So, what are all of those objects orbiting
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:15pm.
Saturn? Moons?
Boudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:19pm.
I think maybe you should actually read the entire conversation before commenting.
Talk down to your feet
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 10:31pm.
Did'nt need your insight after all,
Saturn has nine rings, consisting mostly of ice particles with a smaller amount of rocky debris and dust. Sixty-two[16] known moons orbit the planet; fifty-three are officially named. This is not counting hundreds of "moonlets" within the rings.
Thanks for nothing,,,,,, moonlets
Boudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:12pm.
Look, I understand about noticing a comment on the "recent comment" linky thing and clicking on one and then seeing a comment and commenting on it instead of actually reading the context of that comment.
I get it.
Having said that, I politely suggested that you might want to actually read the entire conversation.
Again.
And given what I do for a living, I don't need your stupid links to understand what counts as a moon.
Grow up!
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:14am.
I had read it first, and nowhere did anyone explain what the small rocks orbiting Saturn are. Now many of us being publicly educated were told they were a collection of asteroids. You contradict this, and gave no label, so I requested one. My mistake.
Truth is, you perceived your ego driven intellect to be under assault, so out came the snark. And not even clever snark, truth be told.
Boudin
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:13pm.
You are, in a sense, correct about the snark. I was in the middle of an argument with The Vet and I mistook your initial post to me as you trying to jump into something that didn't involve you.
As a result, I responded with sarcasm and snark - which I shouldn't have done.
So I apologize for that.
Although I'm sure you've already looked it up, regarding your question about Saturn and its rings, I'll first say that the whole fixation on attaching names to things in our solar system is something that scientists don't really loose too much sleep over (basically what I said here).
Typically, moons are objects above a certain size but what that size is is pretty much arbitrary and you would be hard pressed to find an "official" minimum size for moons.
Beyond that, in my initial post here, I didn't say that only moons orbit planets or bodies larger than themselves. Orbiting another object larger than itself is a necessary condition for an object to be classified as a moon. Other objects not classified as moons might do the same.
Again, sorry about the pissy attitude in my posts to you.
hydro
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:19pm.
They might not loose sleep over such definitions as the one pertaining to moons. But have you heard about this?
troglodyt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:52pm.
Yea - the redefinition of the kilogram has been a topic of discussion in physics for a while. As the article you linked to mentions, it's the last fundamental unit which is still defined in terms of a physical object which is suppose to have the exact value of that quantity.
Unlike with the definition of what actually counts as a moon, coming up with a precise definition for a fundamental unit is pretty important in science.
BTW Hydro, I know you dont need the stupid links
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 8:56pm.
That why I asked you to begin with.
Hydro
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:36am.
It's all in a name?
asteroid, minor planet, planetoid.
Is the statement "they are probably gravitationally bound asteroids" true or false?
Does their name change when they no longer orbit the sun?
When an asteroid breaks orbit and crashes into a moon, or a planet, or the sun, is it no longer an asteroid but a meteoroid?
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:14am.
Yes.
True.
Yes.
Depends.
It is a pathology.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:53am.
What is with the pathetic taunts?
Call me a troll.
You did that last time as well.
It is called needling you little snit.
KNOCK IT OFF.
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:04am.
Gee, I don't know - maybe 'cause you call just about every other poster on this website a troll.
Or maybe I'm just needling you.
So how about you knock that off.
(I'd write that in CAPS but I honestly can't get emotional enough about this to do it)
I am calling you out.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:49am.
Name someone I UNFAIRLY called a troll. Good luck. The New NewsBusters only goes back to October of last year. You can catch some stuff on gigablast.com prior to that. Then there is a hole. Then the Internet Wayback Machine catches stuff from mid 2008 to early 2006.
You are now LYING about me. The first clue - your use of the word every. Only a liar or a newbie or an idiot uses that word. You are LYING about me. Something I have never done even with trolls.
Now you are making it personal just for snits and giggles.
Start naming names since you feel I am so unjust. It should be easy what with me calling EVERY OTHER poster a troll.
Here you go. Here is a nice form especially for you.
Names of posters The Vet has unjustly called a troll.*
1. ___________________
2. ___________________
3. ___________________
4. ___________________
5. ___________________
Sincerely,
A Veteran of a 1000 Psychic Wars that hydrodynDM seems to think is a big bad Word Bully.
* learned this trick from my buddy SickofLibs.
Uh-oh, Hydro. You've caused
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:34am.
Uh-oh, Hydro. You've caused the Vet to move to his default position, "You're a liar."
Good luck, doughboy.
~Butt out, bal
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:47am.
And let the men settle it.
Whatever
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:19pm.
Nice use of italics.
Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:30pm.
I don't mind balboa commenting.
I don't take this thing with Vet too seriously and from my end there isn't anything to settle.
I'm not trying to get you involved in this and I don't expect you to comment on the following, but I will say that if Vet wants to use this disagreement as an excuse to call me a liar or to question my intelligence or whatever, I couldn't care less. The guy rarely posts anything of interest to me which means I rarely have any reason to read his posts. From my end, nothing much will change here for me if he decided to put me on his shit list.
Lord forbid The Vet calls you a liar huh?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:35pm.
You only insunuated I was either an idiot or a liar, what was the count, 4 or 5 times. But, no, no, no, no, don't let let The Vet SAY you LIED about him.
Whoops. Is that 5 or 6? ...he decided to put me on his shit list? Still crawling in my mind and making decisions for me.
Rest assured
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:06pm.
I'm not only "insunuating" but outright telling you: You are an idiot and a liar.
~Shut up, trog
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:45pm.
You'll be lucky to rise to the stature of an idiot one day.
shut up Trog2*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:03pm.
You got a long way to go from Retardimus Trollicus (h/c Vet) in order to rise to the level of idiot.
No matter how often you say it
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:29pm.
It won't shut me up.
You do know
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:05pm.
that everytime you write "shut up" I'll write even more.
What is it your business, anyway?
~Good
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:29pm.
Meet me in the Woodshed and give it your best shot, tough guy.
Knock it off. I am not taking your bait.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:49pm.
.
You already have.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:07pm.
That is probably the difference between you and me on the one side and hydro on the other.
He can knock it off. We can't.
~Good grief
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:30pm.
If you suck-up to hydro any harder you're going to give him a hickey.
You are part
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:36pm.
of the "dark side" too. Just in case you wondered.
~My light saber
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 7:03pm.
is bigger than yours.Bill is asking questions that
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:15pm.
Bill is asking questions that scientists have answers for.
Yeah. Personal ignorance of
Submitted by mamabear on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:30pm.
Yeah. Personal ignorance of the natural world is an uncompelling argument for the existence of God!
Scientists can't explain the idiot that is balboa.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:39am.
How is it that an idiot that has posted nothing but lies and piffle for years now fancies himself smarter than a man that spends 10 hours a week on radio and 5 hours a week on TV? A man that only seems a little unsure when he tries to marry up science with theology?
Where is your radio and TV show braintrust? You, the idiot that lied in the last blog, got busted in a lie, and then spent 8 days whining about the guy that busted him? Altogether, you spent maybe 20 minutes typing and you manage to prove yourself the biggest lying idiot here.
You shove your head straight up your rectum and here you are 8 days later acting like you are smarter than one of the most successful radio and TV show personalities on the planet.
Knowledge and intelligence
Submitted by mamabear on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:18am.
Knowledge and intelligence are not the same thing.
No they arnt
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:22am.
Since you dont have knowledge of what the Queen had for lunch, are you un-intelligent?
Are you still babbling? You
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:14pm.
Are you still babbling? You didn't bust anything, and you still don't comprehend the concept of lying. We're moving on, here. Try and keep up. I can do shorter sentences if you'd prefer.
See Bill. See Bill ask questions. Scientists answered these questions.
Concept of lying
Submitted by Agnostic on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:21pm.
at least politically:
When done by a Republican - anything to which a counter argument can be based regardless of the number of facts for either side of the argument.
When done by a Democrat - When there is no other way out but admit to the lie, apologize and receive your praise for being up front and display your bravery proudly.
Whoops. Balboa thinks I care.
Submitted by The Vet on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 3:04pm.
Wrong. You can say it over and over little lying trollie. It ain't gonna stick. I have not lied once on this site. Everyone knows it. It is why I am tolerated.
So you just keep screaming at the sky, U not blue, sky, trollie sez.
I think it all is a setup for
Submitted by BuffNBone on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:18pm.
I think it all is a setup for when the President pimps BO'R about the subject. Then BO'R wil pounce on the smartest man alive.
Echo chamber
Submitted by MCLIJazz on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:21pm.
Based on my Google News search--"bill o'reilly" website tides--this all began on Wednesday when Gawker (I found that by searching "bill o'reilly" gawker moon) embedded the preview video, found on the Bill O'Reilly YouTube channel, for last week's Backstage Conversation. To see the whole thing, you have to be a premium member. In fact, you have to be a PM to submit a BC question. The echo chamber spread to many far-left sites: SodaHead, Salon, LiveScience, Death and Taxes, Newser (the site of Fox hater Michael Wolff), HuffPo, Mediaite, and Media Matters. One day later, the smear got late night comedy attention on "Conan" and "The Colbert Report." And by yesterday, people like Patrick Goldstein jumped on board.
Consider that O'Reilly is interviewing President Obama on Fox (broadcast) tomorrow at 4:45 PM Eastern. This may have been an attempt at marginalizing him before the interview or just marginalizing him, period. Such is the life of a Fox hater.
Sometimes we just have to wait and see.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/05/2011 - 11:55pm.
Each of us will be confronted with the undeniable and unvarnished truth when the day comes that we pass. The energy within our bodies, our soul, will change form. Ascention, reformation, rebirth, reinvarnation, stairway to heaven, pearly gates, angels, open arms- call it whatever - it is something we will all experience eventually.
None of us knows for sure, until it actually happens to us, what the real deal is. We do however have our faith, our own conviction about what awaits. Me, I choose to play it on the right and proper front. Call it "God fearing". A person serves their own soul well by living their life right in my book.
If death turns out to be just nothingness, well, then at least ya lived life right and with any luck, many generations from now you will be remembered. Is this not a form of life everlasting?
If we remain self aware or become moreso in another form, it sure would be handy to have positive standing, due to a life lived right and proper, to ask some questions in search of higher understanding. I don't know about you folks, but I know I sure have some questions I would like to see answered.
Debate about religion, about origin especially, is a wonderful thing. It ceases to be wonderful when it leaves the realm of exercising a particular Liberty and becomes the infringement upon one or some.
Because we have an example of a known unknown, (that is why it is called "faith") There are times, instances, when we must agree to disagree and just wait our turn for the day individual enlightenment comes.
instead of just being honest about not having the proveable answer to a difficult question, some play semantic games of attempted "gotcha", or even go ad hominem, thinking thier strawman knock outs actually mean something substantial. Sometimes, I feel sorry for folks who go down that path, because they end up having articles like this one written about them, and quite foolish are they exposed as being when that day of reckoning arrives.
Confirmed - Keith Olbermann Will Work The Super Bowl!!
Submitted by im41 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 12:10am.
Confirmed - Keith Olbermann Will Work The Super Bowl!!Right now I am outraged over
Submitted by Rusty Shackleford on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:33am.
Right now I am outraged over the LAT (Well, not really. This lie actually seems kinda weak after seeing how the media worked to Sarah Palin on the Arizona shooting spree) and I just want to go out there and defend O'Reilly...
BUT tomorrow I know I'll be furious at him. I know without a doubt that he's going to loft softballs at PrezBo.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Matthews: The Joy Behar of MSNBC.
Bill Maher: The Joy Behar of HBO.
Paul Krugman: The Joy Behar of The New York Times.
At least we dont have to
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:43am.
At least we dont have to watch Obama throw balls. Now that would be a real funny time. Of course BO may be pitching the same way.
Agreed-i'd rather see Baier or Kelly interview him
Submitted by TexasMom0517 on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 7:15am.
O'Reilly won't ask Obama hard questions or follow-ups and I'll be yelling at the t.v., so I think I'll save my sanity and wait for kickoff before I turn the sound on. Actually, that might be fun, watching just the body language and facial expressions of Obama- big hat, no cattle.
I Agree Wholeheartedly...
Submitted by Conservator on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:08pm.
...but have my doubts that Kelly, who lacks experience in such interviews. Regarding Baier , he would be much better than O'Reilly. He has interviewed the President before and was berated by the left for being to tough and for interrupting Pres. Obama when he used spin rather than answer the question.
Regarding the moon and O'Reilly's 'Premium Member' video reply, I believe this is one topic that NewsBusters should have avoided. O'Reilly states he's sick of pinheads attacking him on this topic. I'm a Christian who believes that God created the universe. Nevertheless, I went to a Catholic college and was a science major. Thus, I can answer a simple question like why does the Earth have a moon.
As the early Earth was forming from the dust, gases and asteroids in our solar system some 4.6 billion years ago, it was hit by a smaller planet - a Mars-sized body sometimes called Theia at an oblique angle (about 45°). The bits and pieces from the impact caused the aggregating debris to form a single moon. This is called the giant impact hypothesis. This is the favored scientific hypothesis for the formation of the Moon. Evidence for this hypothesis includes Moon samples which indicate the surface of the Moon was once molten, the Moon's apparently relatively small iron core, a lower density than the Earth and evidence of similar collisions in other star systems which result in debris disks. See The Origin of the Moon: http://www.psi.edu/projects/moon/moon.html
However, scientific evidence doesn't negate the existence of God or that God didn't create the universe. Genesis 1 opening sentence states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
I can also answer the other questions posed in this video. In this case, O'Reilly is the PINHEAD.
Tingles
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 2:23pm.
I would like to see Tingles, Madcow or Fat Ed conduct the interview. If the audience is as big as the ballyho it could help expose the left wing media. Does anyone actually believe that the interview is going to be revealing and earth shattering. Not me. I have heard this kind of hype for too many years.
They lie
Submitted by gwalt on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 9:59am.
That's what every news meeting in almost every news room is. They get together every day and decide what lie they should make up to make any Conservative look bad. Why any person who wants and respects honesty still watches or reads them in inexcusable. Who cares if they have a great cartoon, movie or food section. Cancel cancel cancel. Stop watching, stop watching, stop watching."A lot of briefing for a 2 hr. special with Dan Rather. Saw the show & wonder why we bothered". Ronald Reagan
Patrick who? Why would
Submitted by johnsonl on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 10:56am.
Patrick who? Why would anybody with any common sense pay any attention to something that eminates from Los Angeles?
WOW
Submitted by Jerry Mack on Sun, 02/06/2011 - 1:54pm.
WOW! The comments covered religion, astrophysics , oceanography and educational accomplishments. Comedian Steve Colbert was used as a reference to make a point. My take is that Goldstein lied. Probably has something to due with the Lamers attempt to discredit BOR's interview with the Messiah.
Sun and Moons
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:47pm.
Quoted above:
"How did the moon get there? How did the sun get there? How did it get there? Can you explain that to me? How come we have that, and Mars doesn't have it? Venus doesn't have it." O'Really? said Venus and Mars don't have a sun - that came after the moon.This is Lie #143
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 12:49pm.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
Capt. UnderPantz:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Mon, 02/21/2011 - 2:53pm.
Come back when you have the guts to actually back your rap.
Do tell us how Senate Joint Resolutions are different than Bills - but lack the force of law.
Show us Duh Gov'Nuh's gas contracts.
Explain how writes "hate" conservatives when the quote didn't state that at all. Perhaps you think Col. Bacevich isn't a patriot because he tells the truth?
Anytime...
Capt. UnderPants
“I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#new#ixzz1DTO3j5fj
“38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-extensive-folks.html#ixzz1DTPuMxVw
- Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha!
PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.
hydro---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 02/07/2011 - 11:50pm.
Please help me out here.
If an object of significant size is captured by the gravitational pull of a larger body and is then set up in an orbit around the larger body; does the attracted object, regardless of what it may have been originally, have it's nomenclature officially change so that it becomes known as a moon?
Does the size of the object or it's time in orbit factor into that name change?
If the answers, in your opinion, are too involved for a post, could you suggest some reading material along those lines?
My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary definition of both "asteroid" and moon are a bit sparse.
Much appreciated.
MD
matthewdean
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:06am.
Keep in mind that we are dealing with a continuous range of orbital and mass possibilities.
Astronomers tend to classify certain objects as falling within certain categories based on things like orbital or compositional or relative mass characteristics.
In some cases, the classifications are used as a way of describing the object in a convenient way, but sometimes it's just a name.
Ultimately, folks outside of science seem more concerned about the names of things than scientists do. For example, the Pluto thing didn't really represent some massive cataclysm in astronomy. People outside of astronomy seemed to make a bigger deal of it.
Tell me the position, momentum and forces acting on a set of objects, and I'll work on telling you how they will evolve in time. Give me the material characteristics of an object within the Solar System and I'll try to come up with a theory for its origin.
What you call those objects is pretty irrelevant.
But back to your original question - I think yes, if a smaller body orbits a larger body that isn't a star, then it's a moon.
hydro---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:38am.
That will do. Thanks. MDmatthew...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:18am.
I'll let hydro and Wiki deal with the trivialities. I want to know WHY you keep putting that apostrophe in "its"?
Now stop it! It's driving me nuts.
Jer
Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:40am.
Seems we had this discussion. I was taught that -it's- is the contraction for it is, and that the possessive form was -its'-; but you convinced me to go with -it's- for everything. IF, however, right or wrong, it's, its', or it is driving you nuts, I will endeavor to continue on. Hah!! Just kidding. What is your preference, sir?I know we did, md...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:16am.
Couldn't pass up the opportunity. One of life's small pleasures.
;-)
Jer
But what would you call a tiny troll orbiting a medium troll?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:22am.
A trolloon?
BTW, this does not take into account the astertroll, which would be defined as those fast-moving heavenly bodies which consistently make challenge-posts in two or less vague sentences that no one can respond to with a straight face. Example:
"I didn't read the movie, but probably won't some day. I'm just raising the question."
SoL---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:57am.
at least now I know that two of 'em, regular sized, is a doubloon. :o)MD:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:04am.
Don't break a tooth when you make change!
matthewdean
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:06am.
OK, that was funny.
I swear, trolls will argue about ANYTHING
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:27am.
Look, there's a mote of dust... what does it most resemble and please provide your rationale.
Showing your work = +10.
SickofLibs
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:31am.
Actually, on my exams, showing your work is 100% of your grade.
But that's just me.
Not sure if I want to be your student then.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 12:42am.
;-)
My algerbra teacher tried to fail me because I wouldn't show my work. I used to sleep through class and still ace the tests, but I could do it all in my head, I was just too lazy to actually write out everything.
I'm actually pretty lucky I passed, cuz I was a jerk, but I think he passed me so he wouldn't have to put up with me for another year.
My next math teacher was awesome though, he recognised that I actually knew my stuff.
We Are The 53%
Denny Crane
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:03am.
It's cool if you know a student well enough to know if they get it or not.
But given the number of students I have a semester and considering that most don't really care that much about my classes (forced electives) and given that I can't read my student's minds, I can't assume they know their stuff.
Most students these days have calculators (TI-89) which can perform symbolic algebra so I can't afford to assume that a given student actually knows what they are doing on a homework assignment or exam unless they actually show me their work.
Ah... the trials and tribulations of being a teacher.
Hmm...the question: What does a 'mote of dust' most resemble?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:07am.
Well, SoL...in terms of volume the answer of course would be Glenn Beck's brain.
Rationale.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:18am.
Why you got to be a hater?
And dust motes are defined by their mass, not their volume.
Duh.
Hey...Professsor Smartypants,
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:25am.
Go hassle your own students. This is SoL's class.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:54am.
SoL's only a substitute teacher so I get to be a jerk.
Hey listen, $12/hr is $12 more than I had 30 minutes ago!
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:57am.
.
Yeah, I know, technically it's only $6 so far
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:59am.
.
SickofLibs
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:02am.
Still - six bucks is six bucks.
Hey Jer: If I screamed PERVERT! in the Food Court,
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 1:35am.
would you jump up and start running?
I wouldn't be so quick to self-identify as a troll.
It's not like you guys aren't mammals or anything.
I'm not answering
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:13am.
until I get my grade on the first exam. I think I aced it.
Jer
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 2:27am.
If you want to make an issue out of this, go ahead.
If you want to give me one of your little pejorative nicknames and hound me on this site, be my guest.
I didn't target or attack you here become I have some beef with you. I wrote a post where I expressed my disagreement with you (and CobraMan) because I thought you were wrong.
If you can't handle that, that's your problem. You might have others on this site too scared to cross you - I'm not one of them.
But honestly, things have gotten a little slow around here. If you want to try to do to me what you do to the "trolls", I'll welcome the change.
Your move, big guy.
Edit: typo
More proof you have no idea what or who I am.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:12am.
So why attack me 4 times and be dead wrong in the process?
If you want to make an issue out of this, go ahead.--- Day One in The Vet's sites? I don't frag my own. Understand it? You picked this fight for the second time. And for the second time, YOU CAN'T MANAGE TO BE CORRECT IN YOUR SLAMS ON ME. You misrepresent what I say and who I am. And then whine that you just doin' your thang man, iz all cool baby. LYING about The Vet, all in a day's work.
If you want to give me one of your little pejorative nicknames and hound me on this site, be my guest. - Whoops. Almost told you to pack sand like I tell to trollies that really torque me. It is called NEEDLING. YOU are doing it. Now what have I said TO YOU that prompts your needling of me?
I didn't target or attack you here become I have some beef with you. I wrote a post where I expressed my disagreement with you (and CobraMan) because I thought you were wrong. --- NO. You were, still won't calling it lying yet, You were severely misrepresenting what I said. I can say you were DEAD WRONG. No wait. I PROVED IT. Now kindly start proving some of the crap you are trying to lay on me.
If you can't handle that, that's your problem. You might have others on this site too scared to cross you - I'm not one of them. --- Handling it pretty well. Yep. Handling it pretty well so far there. And why are you quoting Dead Zippers? My lord in heaven, the hell poor Jer and Shawn must go through. They disagree with me all the time and don't go into a massive whiny screed about how they are not scared of me. And what demon from the deepest foulest intensely burning part of hell motivated them to buddy up with me. NOW you insult the people that do disagree with me and manage to be CORRECT.
But honestly, things have gotten a little slow around here. If you want to try to do to me what you do to the "trolls", I'll welcome the change. --- Slow? Only because of the work of many troll bashers here that drive trollies straight to troll hell (trolling on Pampers.com). Everybody that bashes trolls and drives them absolutely ba-friggin-na-friggin-nas, step forward and raise your hand. Not so fast hydrodynDM....
Your move, big guy. --- As I said, I don't frag my own. I don't attack those of a like mind. I don't attack those that are correct. Oh.. Oh dear... Oh, I am so sorry.. I just... Whoopsiedoodles. Yeah. You do, don't you?
Edit: typo --- Whatever newbie that claims he has been around forever. If it ain't responded to, it is open for editing.
You may be smart, and you may be a professor, but whatever it is you is a perfessor of, it ain't logic, it ain't English, and it ain't interpersonal relations. Snit.
Word Bully calls an idiot an idiot and hydrodynDM pops a rivet
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:18pm.
The fun that is bob loblaw, the Idiot. ----
antithetical to contributor: Why is this on Newsbusters? This is one of the most ridiculous columns I've seen here.
antithetical to site and contributor: You realize this whole website is dedicated to whining about the "other" side, is that also "pathetic"? This article is grasping at straws that isn't there.
antithetical to rightwing talking head & users here: ...it bothered no one here the fawning over George Bush by Sean Hannity...
insulting contributor: And if I like to "bitch" doesn't that mean Tim Graham loves to "bitch"?
Corrected by Noel Sheppard when he misreads what Mr. Sheppard wrote.
Links to Media Matters, a known slur & slander site for conservatives and tries to blame Fox News for CNN switching camera feeds on Michele Bachmann's response to the SOTU.
Lies about conservatives, insults conservatives: Conservatives only care about the debt when they are out of office, and love to spend just as much as liberals except conservatives don't like to pay for their spending.
Oops. This was the second time he attack O'Reilly: It is no surprise the O'Reilly is completely wrong.
Misleads on Megyn Kelly (she denied it was done every night): ...here is the segment in which Stewart called out Megyn Kelly for saying Fox News doesn't make Nazi comparison...
Misleads and lies about President Reagan and conservatives ----
Reagan didn't win the Cold War... Bull. Slate: How Reagan won the Cold War. conserapedia essay: How Ronald Reagan won the Cold War Dinesh D'Souza: How Reagan Won the Cold War history.net: President Ronald Reagan: Winning the Cold War NY Daily News, Rudy Giuliani: Ronald Reagan's unyielding style won the Cold War Lew Rockwell: Reagan Changed the World "Few Americans realize that President Reagan's economic policy won the cold war by rejuvenating capitalism." Buy the multitude of books on the subject - Google: Reagan won the Cold War books.
most of what Conservative tout today about Reagan is a myth.
Reagan increased government spending, and the debt rose to record highs, --- Misleading and a LIE. Top Federal outlays as a percent of GDP went from 22% in 1981 to to 21.3% in 1988. IT WENT DOWN. I wrote about that in April of 2009. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP went from 31.91% in 1981 to 51.02% in 1988. Record high? It was higher than 51.02% from 1943 to 1961. And has been higher every year since 1989.
and he did raise taxes. --- LIE. Top marginal rates went from 69.13% in 1981 to 28% in 1988.
Oh hydrodynDM. Helloooooooo...
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:56pm.
Waiting for you to tell me how wrong I was about President Reagan and how right bob loblaw was.
Hellooooooooo. hydrodynDM.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:25pm.
You questioned why I called him an idiot. Waiting for you to confirm he is indeed NOT an idiot that lies about President Reagan and spreads hate about this site, its contributors, conservatives, and the users here.
I saw you posting here after I made the comment above. What, I am to walk away now thanking you for lying about me and insinuating I am an all around jerk, word bully & paranoid that accuses half of the people here of being trolls? This after I called you the following names prior to this blog --->
.............................................................................................................................
...................<crickets>.............................................................................................
...........................................................................................
...................................
.....................<chirp chirp chirp>............................................
..........................................
...................................(wait, was that a frog?).........................
.........................................................................................................
......................................................
I'm here.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 6:39pm.
If you crave for attention. And obviously that was a parrot.
President Reagan and the Federal Debt
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 9:26pm.
The Federal debt increased during the two administrations of Ronald Reagan. While you could channel Dick Cheney and argue it didn't make any difference - the fact remains that the debt increased. To compare debt levels are a percentage of GNP might be useful in an analysis of the nation's ability to repay that debt, the fact remains that the debt (and the interest that had to be paid on it) increased.
Federal Debt July 1, 1981: $ 973,350
Federal Debt July 1, 1984: $ 1,538,602
Federal Debt July 1, 1988: $ 2,553,947
(000,000's) - actual (not constant) dollars.
Source www.treasurydirect.gov
While Mr. Reagan was President the largest increase in Federal income tax history (at least since the Civil War, or perhaps was the income tax was brought back) was passed. This should not have been a surprise to anyone who knew his history as governor of California.
Marginal tax rates are not a measure of the overall tax rate or of taxes collected. The AMT has became a brutal tax not because it is such a high marginal rate - rather because it turns tax planning on its head and casts a very wide net, indeed.
Still waiting for you to answer up for your lies.
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 10:07pm.
Did you forget who I am? Huh?
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
#161 What was that Lying Sissy?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/02/2011 - 2:49am.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You have no facts.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You call people liars but you can't prove it.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You dodge, you duck... You don't offer facts.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: ...prove it. ...you can't
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy:...bluster. ...neither you or they can prove it. ...proven to be all bluster, no fact.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: He's proven he can call people liars. He's also proven he can't back it up.
j. frank wilson the 144 time lying Sissy: You are correct...I was wrong.
Capt. UnderPants:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 11:47pm.
Do you honestly think you can make something come true by repeating it enough times?
That would explain that pony you got for Christmas...
I'm tempted to suggest your so-called lies are in your mind - but that would give you credit for something you haven't got.
Referring to yourself in the third person does say a lot about it. "That's why they call me 'The Vet'" you wrote. Gee, I thought that was because you picked that handle when you joined NB.
The anonymous moniker insults another anonymous moniker.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:50am.
Whatever. You keep coming here. I keep pointing out your lies. Every. Single. Time.
It is called the collected LIES not nwahs style insults.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
Waiting since August 20, 2010 for you to man up and start answering for your lies. All you have done so far is add to them. Look, your most famous LIE is still there.
111. Claims George W. Bush refuses to release his DD-214. GWB served in the Texas Air National Guard. Only active duty members serparating from the federal armed forces would get a form from the Department of Defense (the DD of DD-214).
Capt. UnderPants' "Lies"
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:40pm.
Just one easy example. Capt. UnderPants claims this is a lie:
109. Gov. Palin is bragging about the natural gas pipeline. Where is the gas to fill it?
Now, a logical person would have posted documentation of the gas contracts signed for the pipeline. Then I would have been proved wrong.
Instead, Capt. UnderPants thinks is sufficient to simply state:
" -Yea, we always build multi-million dollar pipelines without haveing [sic] a clue about what sources will fill it."
That is an assertion - not a fact. “We?” Capt. UnderPants and his tapeworm?
The fact remains that is just what happened. Please see the links, below.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/forums/internal-affairs/under-construction-collected-lies-j-frank-wilson-newsbusters-oldest-prolific#ixzz1DTn0z2M1
October 2, 2008:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1846731,00.html
- Also provides some information on the second oil company windfall profits tax instituted by Gov. Palin.
Sept. 20, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/2008/09/19/palin-s-pipeline-to-nowhere.html#
- Some more background on the project
March 17, 2009: Alaska legislature authorizes payment of $500,000,000 [gorilla chips – that’s a lot of cranberries!] to a Canadian construction firm. Yes, this article was written by Joe McGinnis. Save us all time and get to the point: Where are the gas contracts signed when this article was written?
http://www.portfolio.com/executives/features/2009/03/17/Governor-Palins-Big-Energy-Battles/index.html
Capt. UnderPants has proven several times he doesn’t understand the payments made by the state of Alaska to its citizens. We’re all glad to hear he has an IRA with royalty trusts. This fascinating fact, of course, has nothing to do with a corporation paying a windfall profits tax to the state of Alaska and then deducting that expense before calculating Federal income tax.
Yes, the citizens of the other 49 states subsidize the taxes paid to the state of Alaska, because those payments reduce the corporations’ Federal income tax liability. And it is classic socialism to impose a profits tax on corporations and then distribute the proceeds directly to the citizens.
Is that really so hard to understand?
Do us all a favor, Capt. UnderPants, and skip the "Insult / Lies / Blah, Blah, Blah / Project / Distract / Blah, Blah, Blah (repeat, repeat, repeat...)" and get to the point:
Document the gas contracts.
Capt. UnderPants
“I pound on trolls here WITHOUT MERCY. I cannot afford to be wrong once. Do you understand that? Not once can I be wrong in front of the trolls.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2011/02/05/lat-falsely-attacks-fncs-oreilly#new#ixzz1DTO3j5fj
“38. Whoops. 343 posts and I finally make a mistake in a field I only started reading about 3 days ago.”
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/extensive-lies-and-stupid-trogldyt-i-do-mean-extensive-folks.html#ixzz1DTPuMxVw
- Mistakes don’t count as being “wrong” if the writer is new to the subject. You betcha!
PS: I don’t make up quotes. The real thing is good enough.
PACK SAND Troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:50pm.
And yourbuddy hydrondynDM that gave you snit trolls the permission for open warfare on me can PACK SAND as well.
You have a forum for this. Take it there. Piss off for bringing my mother into you twisted little tales of lies.
Capt. UnderPants:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 2:09pm.
Now you think you make the rules? You can call me a liar and when I defend myself you tell me I'm in the wrong forum?
You don't have facts, you don't have documentation, you can't back up your wild claims.
I knew you couldn't. That's why I didn't bother responding.
Welll, now I did. And you have - once again - nothin'.
You betcha.
~jane frank
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:31pm.
The Vet already covered this ground, and it's strewn with the tattered shreds of your credibility. Now take those underpants you keep referring to off your head and find a tagline to ask really dumb questions about.
WretchedBrunette:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:43pm.
"Covered?" By asserting it isn't true? That's good enough for you?
Why don't you jump in - instead of yelling from the Peanut Gallery - and respond for him.
Document the gas contracts.
~Whassat?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 4:16pm.
You trying to give me orders, boyo? My, aren't we bossy. You are the very model of a modern major general. Sing it for us, fwankie boy.
WretchedBrunette:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:41pm.
I'm sure you are used to taking orders - "Would you like fries with that?"
But no, I was simply making a suggestion how you could prove me wrong.
You don't have any Moxie on the ball, either. Apparently you have cute names (do you really think "fwankie boy" is an insult? WoW!) but no facts.
You and Capt. UnderPants make quite a pair. Full of sound and fury...well, you might know the rest. You betcha!
Frankie the orders WB takes,
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 6:59pm.
Frankie the orders WB takes, when she's in the mood, are "Ready, aim,..." you know the rest.
I hear she's a crack shot, mostly at shooting down trolls. Better duck.
~I'm so glad you came back, jane frank
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 7:44pm.
You appeared to be lost, and I'm afraid no one volunteered for the search party. I see you followed your trail of droppings back, I applaud your initiative. If you're still feeling ambitious perhaps you could apply for the NB Troll Tag Team. I'm not sure you'll pass the exam, but I'm rooting for ya, I really am. Anyone who can screw the pooch with as much enthusiasm as you deserves to be encouraged in his quest for utter humiliation.
Private Bill Wilson LIES again. His attempt at #109 shot down.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/19/2011 - 6:02pm.
Once again, I disprove his attempt to double down on another lie in the forum where it belongs.
The Collected Lies of J. Frank Wilson. Newsbusters oldest prolific lying troll.
The little sissy can try and link all he wants where he thinks he can get the biggest audience. Meanwhile, I prove his every LIE for exactly what it is every single time.
You lose again. Lying sissy wilson. Too bad that twit hydrodynDM won't touch you. He leaves the heavy lifting to the real men.
Puddinhead wilson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 12:55am.
ever the buffoon. Dude lies about his lies, and then lies by lying about lying about them. Putz.matthewdean:
Submitted by j. frank wilson on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:07pm.
Do you ever hit yourself in the eyes with those pom-poms?
~Poor jane frank
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 3:38pm.
Who longs, hopelessly, impotently, and fruitlessly for just one measly little itty-bitty fwiend.
Puddinhead wilson---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 02/10/2011 - 2:01am.
Nope. Never have hit myself in the eye with a pom-pom. I have on occasion wet one down, put it in the freezer until rock hard, and then used it to beat the shit out of an outhouse troll. Better beware them pom-poms, there, putz.Tidal Locking, Face to face orbiting for ever and ever.
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 3:50am.
Tidal locking (or captured rotation) occurs when the gravitational gradient makes one side of an astronomical body always face another.Hay BOR was talking about the uniqueness of Earth Ocean Tides.
Only one instance in this solar system where face to face tidal locking occurs to both orbiting bodies. Way far away on the new dwarf planet Pluto and the dwarf moon Charon.
You Didn't Build That.
Congratulations hydrodynDM
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:17pm.
Looks like you have 2 new buddies. The crypto-dummy, a known liar, and the Little Boy Liar that I already told you had a record 38 Lies and Stupid in one blog.
Buddy up. Then you call all coordinate attacks on me in the future. Say, question, how come your new buddies can't point out where I was wrong as well? Odd, all they can do is snivel and ask questions like I will suddenly get all talky with 2 known liars.
Another question. Is this what you meant to do? Initiate attacks on me by the few trolls left here?
OK Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:43pm.
I've had disagreements with other long time (as in non-"troll") members on this site and none of them have exhibited the kind of bizarre borderline paranoid behavior you have exhibited here.
What's next - you'll accuse me of being a plant?
I really hope for your sake that this is just a part of your online persona.
If you feel compelled to comment to this - and I'm sure you will - feel free. I'll probably just ignore it and you.
Did you needle them mercilessly as well?
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 4:54pm.
Again with predictions of what I will or will not do - you'll accuse me of being a plant?
For a guy that rarely have any reason to read his posts, you sure do have a knack for insinuating what my next move will or will not be.
I'll probably just ignore it and you. --- What is this, lie 6 or 7? You have not ignored a thing I said here and you went so far as to LIE about what I did say a bunch of times, NONE OF WHICH you will answer up for.
Let's get an accurate count here. Whoops I was way off. It is 11
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:58pm.
1. Questions Denny's statement - "The Vet never said they weren't moons." --- Denny was correct, I never said they weren't moons. It is a LIE.
2. Again counters Denny - The Vet (and Cobra) did in this case... --- Again, I never said they were not moons. It is a LIE.
3. Still claiming I denied they were moons - CobraMan and The Vet were wrong. --- 3 times Lucky? It is a LIE.
4. Personal lie - ...unlike you, I don't decide who I post to based on...
5. ..were just suggesting that bob's own post "partially supported" CobraMan's point... --- I said his LINK partially support... not post.
6.Funny that you don't actually say that in your post linked above --- How do I point out a LIE about me, here is what i said in that post above --- I simply quoted from the same link the LowBlow idiot provided. The link FROM NASA. And I NEVER, are you listening? I NEVER said weren't moons in that post. "The Vet (and Cobra) did in this case -- ---
7. You and Cobra were wrong. --- At what point does repeating the same lie over and over become a viscious smear?
8. ...you call just about every other poster on this website a troll.. --- Still waiting for you to start filling out that list. After all you got lots of names to pick from - just about every other poster.
9. I couldn't care less....anything of interest to me...rarely have any reason to read his posts... --- And yet he manages to make prediction after prediction of what I will do, what I will say, knows how many people I have called trolls, what nicknames I give out...
10. I expressed my disagreement with you (and CobraMan) because I thought you were wrong. --- Expressed your disagreement? thought? You said I was wrong in no uncertain terms. See item 1, 2, 3 & 7
11. ....bizarre borderline paranoid behavior... --- Oh, you mean like lying about you 10 times? Oh wait... Yeah, that was you lying about me.
Why the brawl over moons guys?
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 02/08/2011 - 5:42pm.
Fight over this
The Vet
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 02/09/2011 - 7:14pm.
Here's my response.
I look forward to your level-headed and well thought out reply.