Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 >*******You said he [bush] was inaugurated with Mars at such-and-such place and then afterwards " attracted " violence and the Sept. 11th attack by his actions as President, and that he " started wars " as President. Starman, Stop putting text in my mouth. I said that Bush has fostered ill will in the world apart from 9-11. Please go back and re-read my original statements. ******I note you left them out of this post so no one could see them! Here they are: >>> our current President..s inauguration chart has Mars setting, and this idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst >>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars. *******And I responded that I saw nothing the new President did to " attract " the Sept. 11th, 2001 bombings, which were planned and underway while Clinton was in office--- nor has he started any wars, since the Muslims started it. QED. > > If the Europeans think that they know what's best and all we > need to do is follow their lead, perhaps they'd like to explain why we had > to > rescue them from two continent-wide wars in just the past century while > we've had none. > > >>>Germany and Japan did not declare WAR on the USA first????? Where > have you learned your history?? The Raelians? ******* The Europeans who now claim such superior knowledge of preventing wars started two world wars on their own European continent, one in 1914 and one in 1939. Both were going on for years before there was any US involvement. If you wish to know what happened " first " in the case of the Second World War, it was Germany's invasion of Poland in Sept. 1939, over two years before the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941 that got us involved in saving the Europeans from themselves for the second time in the twentieth century. > > the adherents of a Dark Ages religion bomb NYC and kill > 3,000 innocent people but the US is to blame for hunting them down? > > The ill-will started well before 9-11. Bush's unilateral withdrawal > from the ABM treaty was a bigee, among other items. ********Do you or anyone else seriously believe the ABM Treaty or any other treaties, have the slightest thing to do with Osama bin Laden and why fundamentalist Islam hates the modern West? If so, I'd say you have very little understanding of Islam. There's a linkage between these two only in the minds of NY Times editorial writers, or someone like them. Fundamentalist Islam is a menace for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with US-Soviet arms control treaties. > > >>> Imagine you are an Iraqi, and the son of the >butcher that > slaughtered a retreating army in 1991 was given power against the will of > the > people? > > > >*******Two mythic falsehoods in one sentence! Amazing. > > Is there a rule in the Mideast (or anywhere else, for that > matter) that once you invade another country and then get kicked out, > you're > entitled to some kind of special treatment as you're retreating? What mercy > > would that army have shown to another, hmmmm? About what they showed to the > > Kuwaitis. > > >>>The Kuwaitis were whipsawing and stealing Iraqi oil in violation of > international agreements. That was ok, though, i guess? ******Even if that was true----- which is debatable---- is it your position that that justifies Hussein invading the country and trying to annex it to his own? By what " international agreement " was THAT ok? > >>> there was an active campaign in > Florida to remove blacks from the voter rolls (to the tune of about > 50,000 votes, mostly Democrat) that was linked directly to Bush, > Harris, and some others. But, I guess that ignoring the facts for > you is how you can justify believing these silly things you do. > > ******Um, speaking of believing silly things, there's zero proof for this > bizarre assertion. Nothing of the kind has ever been reported. It's mere > Democratic Party propaganda. > > >> >>To me, he is an insult to rationality and intelligence... > > > >*****Well, so much for being able to be objective about world > events then. It's not very likely you'll be able to, clearly, and if you > don't > think so... well, De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. > > Tacky comments such as this are a waste of time. ******As is talking to someone saying these sorts of things while believing himself to be 'objective'. I begin to perceive why I've seen the responses here to you that I have. > > Please re-read my original post, and you will see where you went > wrong in your assessment of it. ******I see now I went wrong in responding to it at all, I guess! > I would also like an answer to the first question I posed to you in > my last post. > *******Sorry, I only choose to have conversations with people who listen to others. I don't see any point in continuing this. Dr. Starman http://www.DrStarman.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 Gentlemen... May I make a suggestion.... Bein' that I now live in the " south " ... and feelin' like some kinda rhett butler let me suggest an opportunity to put politics aside and view the " Mars in the 7th house " . When i look at dubya's mars in the 7th at inaguration i consider it associated with being president. I suggest we look at the inaguration chart... at dubya's natal, lunar, progressed, etc...etc.. and check out the transits... We know that some major configurations will be occurring shortly... Why don't we attempt to call the War with Iraq.... As far as I'm concerned it think it would be rather constructive.... jivio --- DRStarman2001 wrote: > > >*******You said he [bush] was inaugurated with Mars > at such-and-such place > and then afterwards " attracted " violence and the > Sept. 11th attack by his > actions as President, and that he " started wars " as > President. > > Starman, > Stop putting text in my mouth. I said that Bush has > fostered ill > will in the world apart from 9-11. Please go back > and re-read my > original statements. > > ******I note you left them out of this post so no > one could see them! Here > they are: > > >>> our current President..s inauguration chart has > Mars setting, and > this idiot has managed to piss off most of the > world, attract the worst > >>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars. > > *******And I responded that I saw nothing the new > President did to " attract " > the Sept. 11th, 2001 bombings, which were planned > and underway while Clinton > was in office--- nor has he started any wars, since > the Muslims started it. > QED. > > > > > If the Europeans think that they know what's > best and all we > > need to do is follow their lead, perhaps they'd > like to explain why we had > > to > > rescue them from two continent-wide wars in just > the past century while > > we've had none. > > > > >>>Germany and Japan did not declare WAR on the > USA first????? Where > > have you learned your history?? The Raelians? > > ******* The Europeans who now claim such superior > knowledge of preventing > wars started two world wars on their own European > continent, one in 1914 and > one in 1939. Both were going on for years before > there was any US > involvement. > If you wish to know what happened " first " in the > case of the Second World > War, it was Germany's invasion of Poland in Sept. > 1939, over two years before > the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor in Dec. > 1941 that got us involved > in saving the Europeans from themselves for the > second time in the twentieth > century. > > > > > the adherents of a Dark Ages religion bomb NYC > and kill > > 3,000 innocent people but the US is to blame for > hunting them down? > > > > The ill-will started well before 9-11. Bush's > unilateral withdrawal > > from the ABM treaty was a bigee, among other > items. > > ********Do you or anyone else seriously believe the > ABM Treaty or any other > treaties, have the slightest thing to do with Osama > bin Laden and why > fundamentalist Islam hates the modern West? If so, > I'd say you have very > little understanding of Islam. There's a linkage > between these two only in > the minds of NY Times editorial writers, or someone > like them. Fundamentalist > Islam is a menace for reasons that have nothing > whatever to do with US-Soviet > arms control treaties. > > > > > >>> Imagine you are an Iraqi, and the son of the > >butcher that > > slaughtered a retreating army in 1991 was given > power against the will of > > the > > people? > > > > > >*******Two mythic falsehoods in one sentence! > Amazing. > > > Is there a rule in the Mideast (or anywhere > else, for that > > matter) that once you invade another country and > then get kicked out, > > you're > > entitled to some kind of special treatment as > you're retreating? What mercy > > > > would that army have shown to another, hmmmm? > About what they showed to the > > > > Kuwaitis. > > > > >>>The Kuwaitis were whipsawing and stealing Iraqi > oil in violation of > > international agreements. That was ok, though, i > guess? > > ******Even if that was true----- which is > debatable---- is it your position > that that justifies Hussein invading the country and > trying to annex it to > his own? By what " international agreement " was THAT > ok? > > > > >>> there was an active campaign in > > Florida to remove blacks from the voter rolls (to > the tune of about > > 50,000 votes, mostly Democrat) that was linked > directly to Bush, > > Harris, and some others. But, I guess that > ignoring the facts for > > you is how you can justify believing these silly > things you do. > > > > ******Um, speaking of believing silly things, > there's zero proof for this > > bizarre assertion. Nothing of the kind has ever > been reported. It's mere > > Democratic Party propaganda. > > > > > >> >>To me, he is an insult to rationality and > intelligence... > > > > > >*****Well, so much for being able to be objective > about world > > events then. It's not very likely you'll be able > to, clearly, and if you > > don't > > think so... well, De Nile ain't just a river in > Egypt. > > > > Tacky comments such as this are a waste of time. > > > ******As is talking to someone saying these sorts of > things while believing > himself to be 'objective'. I begin to perceive why > I've seen the responses > here to you that I have. > > > > > Please re-read my original post, and you will see > where you went > > wrong in your assessment of it. > > ******I see now I went wrong in responding to it at > all, I guess! > > > I would also like an answer to the first question > I posed to you in > > my last post. > > > *******Sorry, I only choose to have conversations > with people who listen to > others. I don't see any point in continuing this. > > Dr. Starman > http://www.DrStarman.net > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been > removed] > > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 , DRStarman2001@a... wrote: > > ******I note you left them out of this post so no one could see them! Here they are: (oh please!) > >>> our current President..s inauguration chart has Mars setting, and > this idiot has managed to piss off most of the world, attract the worst > >>>terrorist attack in history, and start new wars. > > *******And I responded that I saw nothing the new President did to " attract " > the Sept. 11th, 2001 bombings, which were planned and underway while Clinton > was in office--- But executed while Bush was in office. I don't see how you can say it was a fait accompli before January of 2001. And, I don't see how you can deny the evidence that Bush & Co. stifled the CIA and FBI in the months before the attacks, thus allowing the events to occur. > nor has he started any wars, since the Muslims started it. > QED. " The Muslims " started it?? How overly simplistic and underly truthful, and nowhere near QED, my friend. I suppose you also feel that the Crusades were " a defensive war " as is believed by Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz?? > > > If the Europeans think that they know what's best and all we > > need to do is follow their lead, perhaps they'd like to explain why we had > > to > > rescue them from two continent-wide wars in just the past century while > > we've had none. > > > > >>>Germany and Japan did not declare WAR on the USA first????? Where > > have you learned your history?? The Raelians? > > ******* The Europeans who now claim such superior knowledge of preventing > wars started two world wars on their own European continent, one in 1914 and > one in 1939. Both were going on for years before there was any US > involvement. > If you wish to know what happened " first " in the case of the Second World > War, it was Germany's invasion of Poland in Sept. 1939, over two years before > the Japanese attacking us at Pearl Harbor in Dec. 1941 that got us involved > in saving the Europeans from themselves for the second time in the twentieth > century. > > > > > the adherents of a Dark Ages religion bomb NYC and kill > > 3,000 innocent people but the US is to blame for hunting them down? > > > > The ill-will started well before 9-11. Bush's unilateral withdrawal > > from the ABM treaty was a bigee, among other items. > > ********Do you or anyone else seriously believe the ABM Treaty or any other > treaties, have the slightest thing to do with Osama bin Laden and why > fundamentalist Islam hates the modern West? No, but it has a lot to do with why this Administration has garnered such ill will with most of the West; I never said it was why " Islam hates the West, " which is another statement of dubious character. > If so, I'd say you have very > little understanding of Islam. I'd say you have very little understanding in general! > There's a linkage between these two only in > the minds of NY Times editorial writers, or someone like them. Who? I had never head anyone make such a point, but maybe you have some references? > Fundamentalist > Islam is a menace for reasons that have nothing whatever to do with US-Soviet > arms control treaties. (Fundamentalist Christianity is a menace for that very reason, among others, though.) > > > > >>>The Kuwaitis were whipsawing and stealing Iraqi oil in violation of > > international agreements. That was ok, though, i guess? > > ******Even if that was true----- which is debatable---- is it your position > that that justifies Hussein invading the country and trying to annex it to > his own? By what " international agreement " was THAT ok? Well, you have been drowned so deeply in propaganda that you have lost sight of much factual history. The Bush (41) dimplomatic solution to the Iraq/Kuwait oil tensions was to let the Iraqi's take unilateral action -- I'm surprised you don't recall April Glaspie: >>>> 25 July: Saddam Hussein was personally told by the US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, in a now-famous remark, that " We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. " But she then went on to tell the Iraqi leader that she was concerned about his massive troop deployment on the Kuwaiti border in the context of his government's having branded Kuwait's actions as " parallel to military aggression " . <<<< You really need to read the rest of this article: >>>> Although the official Washington version of events presented Iraq's occupation of neighboring Kuwait as an arbitrary and unwarranted aggression, Kuwait had actually been a district of Iraq, under Ottoman rule, up to the First World War. After the war, to exert leverage against the abundantly oil-rich Iraq, the British Colonial Office established tiny Kuwait as a separate territorial entity, in the process cutting off most of Iraq's access to the Persian Gulf. In 1961, Kuwait became " independent " , again because Britain declared it to be so, and Iraq massed troops at the border, backing down when the British dispatched their own forces. Subsequent Iraqi regimes never accepted the legitimacy of this state of affairs, making similar threats in the 1970s, even crossing a half-mile into Kuwait in 1976, but Baghdad was also open to a compromise with Kuwait under which Iraq would gain access to its former islands in the Gulf.{6} The current conflict had its origins in the brutal 1980-88 war between Iraq and Iran. Iraq charged that while it was locked in battle, Kuwait was engaged in stealing $2.4 billion of oil from the Rumaila oil field that ran beneath the vaguely-defined Iraq-Kuwait border and was claimed in its entirety by Iraq; that Kuwait had built military and other structures on Iraqi territory; and worst of all, that immediately after the war ended, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates began to exceed the production quotas established by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), flooding the oil market, and driving prices down. Iraq was heavily strapped and deeply in debt because of the long war, and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein declared this policy was an increasing threat to his country -- " economic war " , he called it, pointing out that Iraq lost a billion dollars a year for each drop of one dollar in the oil price.{7} Besides compensation for these losses, Hussein insisted on possession of the two Gulf islands which blocked Iraq's access to the Gulf as well as undisputed ownership of the Rumaila oilfield. In the latter part of July 1990, after Kuwait had continued to scorn Iraq's financial and territorial demands, and to ignore OPEC's request to stick to its assigned quota, Iraq began to mass large numbers of troops along the Kuwaiti border. The reaction to all this by the world's only remaining superpower and self-appointed global policeman became the subject of intense analysis and controversy after Iraq actually invaded. Had Washington given Iraq a green light to invade? Was there, at a minimum, the absence of a flashing red light? <<<< http://members.aol.com/bblum6/iraq2.htm If you knew your history, you would know that most all political States were attained by conquest. The Mexican-American War is one you should study. But, I don't want this exchange to start going over your RepubliKlan head; please learn your history and get your facts straight. > > >>> there was an active campaign in > > Florida to remove blacks from the voter rolls (to the tune of about > > 50,000 votes, mostly Democrat) that was linked directly to Bush, > > Harris, and some others. But, I guess that ignoring the facts for > > you is how you can justify believing these silly things you do. > > > > ******Um, speaking of believing silly things, there's zero proof for this > > bizarre assertion. Nothing of the kind has ever been reported. It's mere > > Democratic Party propaganda. > > > > > >> >>To me, he is an insult to rationality and intelligence... > > > > > >*****Well, so much for being able to be objective about world > > events then. It's not very likely you'll be able to, clearly, and if you > > don't > > think so... well, De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt. > > > > Tacky comments such as this are a waste of time. > > > ******As is talking to someone saying these sorts of things while believing > himself to be 'objective'. I begin to perceive why I've seen the responses > here to you that I have. This is a rather paltry excuse for your own shortcomings, no? > > Please re-read my original post, and you will see where you went > > wrong in your assessment of it. > > ******I see now I went wrong in responding to it at all, I guess! Thank you for finally admitting to it. > > I would also like an answer to the first question I posed to you in > > my last post. > > > *******Sorry, I only choose to have conversations with people who listen to > others. I don't see any point in continuing this. Yes, as you need a refresher course in high school history, apparently, after which you can come to the table with perhaps something of value to say. sheesh! - e Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > When i look at dubya's mars in the 7th at inaguration > i consider it associated with being president. > I suggest we look at the inaguration chart... > at dubya's natal, lunar, progressed, etc...etc.. > and check out the transits... Jiv, Well, go for it! It's a bit too simplistic to say that the inauguration chart is simply associated with Bush being President, as the chart represents a shift of power of an entire branch of government (the Executive), which encompasses a much larger reality. > Why don't we attempt to call the War with Iraq.... > As far as I'm concerned it think it would be rather > constructive.... Why haven't you? I have: http://www.startiming.net/cave/iraqdata.html My prediction is that the USA will win. ;-) - E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 --- " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote: > , Juan > Oliver <jivio> > wrote: > > > When i look at dubya's mars in the 7th at & inaugurationtion > > i consider it associated with being president. > > I suggest we look at inaugurationtion chart... > > at dubya's natal, lunar, progressed, etc...etc.. > > and check out the transits... > > Jiv, > > Well, go for it! It's a bit too simplistic to say > that the > inauguration chart is simply associated with Bush > being President, as > the chart represents a shift of power of an entire > branch of > government (the Executive), which encompasses a much > larger reality. > > Yes edcouldyouevernotbesoclueless... It is simplistic, how else would initiatingest iniating a beginning for a constructive enterprise? > > > > Why don't we attempt to call the War with Iraq.... > > As far as I'm concerned it think it would be > rather > > constructive.... > > Why haven't you? I have: > > http://www.startiming.net/cave/iraqdata.html > > My prediction is that the USA will win. > > ;-) > > - E > Well... I'll check out your site and your info but to save me time do tell what day and at what time the War starts... Here's ;-) at you kid.... jivio > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 , Juan Oliver <jivio> wrote: > Yes edcouldyouevernotbesoclueless... It is simplistic, > how else would initiatingest iniating a beginning for > a constructive enterprise? Jiv, Why are you interested in cheap shots? Were you picked on as a kid? Does this have to do with frustration from when I made minced meat out of you on the ACT list? Can you rewrite this above thought with proper English syntax? Please? > Well... I'll check out your site and your info but to > save me time do tell what day and at what time the War > starts... Last October I postulated that it would start in late Jan or early Feb, this after noting the time Bush signed the Authorization. This has lately become the time frame that they (media and government) are preparing us for. Go to the site for specifics, it won't kill you to learn something new for a change. - E Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 --- " Ed Kohout <crumpo " <crumpo wrote: > , Juan > Oliver <jivio> > wrote: > > > Yes edcouldyouevernotbesoclueless... It is > simplistic, > > how else would initiatingest iniating a beginning > for > > a constructive enterprise? > > Jiv, > > Why are you interested in cheap shots? Were you > picked on as a > kid? Does this have to do with frustration from > when I made minced > meat out of you on the ACT list? > LMAO... crumpo... within " cheep shot " & " cheep suit " lives a fantasy only his neptunian designer knows for sure. As for making minced meat out of me.. Apparently that was your ambition and perception. > Can you rewrite this above thought with proper > English syntax? > Please? > yea...glad to... I used the spell check on and somehow????... (fyi)I thought edcouldyouevernotbesoclueless was rather innocuous .... probably like you thought " Jiv " was innocuous. It ain't no big thing crumpo... I wasn't trying to hurt your feelings and why view what I wrote as a " cheap shot " ? the sentance should have read as follows. Yes edcouldyouevernotbesoclueless... It is simplistic, how else would you suggest initiating a beginning for a constructive enterprise? " To the Group " The e-mail I wrote was an innocent suggestion. Does ambition exist within the group to collectively develop a process of discovery... I happen to like the idea because it allows everyone, rookie and experienced alike to participate. Think of it as a process for learning various charting methods. Its real-time and real hands on... If a quorum isn't interested in a week...so be it... > > > > Well... I'll check out your site and your info but > to > > save me time do tell what day and at what time the > War > > starts... > > Last October I postulated that it would start in > late Jan or early > Feb, this after noting the time Bush signed the > Authorization. This > has lately become the time frame that they (media > and government) are > preparing us for. Go to the site for specifics, it > won't kill you to > learn something new for a change. > > > - E > late jan. or early feb. is a generalization and suitable but I'm talkin day and possibly hour of attack... and I think that postulating to the day is doable. media and government speculation currently cautions against action at this time and so does the mood of the general public. I have a sense for a time when Mars is in proximity to Pluto which is in May and June... This is highly unlikly though because of the heat in the desert. Mars will oppose Saturn at that time. On the surface I'm thinking March or later. I don't see the USA beginning the attack while so many planets are retrograde... Its a preparation time currently and I think the retro planets are here until March... I will check out your site again and see what you have there... I like the idea of using the " authorization " chart you mentioned... Have you run any lunar returns or lunar synodics off of this chart? Have you run a CapSolar? As for " learning something new for a change " ...(fyi) I do that every day and I recommend the practice highly. Jivio PS: The group here is interested in sidereal astrology and every time we get off center and write about " personal " politics we defeat the opportunity of exchanging ideas and thoughts on the subject. > > " How can Pluto be in Sagittarius when it's so close > to Antares? " ----- > > Post message: > Subscribe: > - > Un: > - > List owner: > -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > / > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.