What To Think Of Mr. Scott McClellan? (page 4)

jwblog

Puhleeaasee! .... r.

If you insist

What do you think an anointed one does actually? They enforce the Laws of GOD right? hmmm, King David. Does any of that ring a bell?

Homerovah the Almighty

JWBLOG GO BACK TO YOUR KINGDOM HALL YOU PSYCHOTIC NUT CASE

YOUR BRAIN ISN'T FILLED WITH JEHOVAH'S SPIRIT ITS FILLED WITH BULLSHIT AND ITS DRIPPING ALL OVER THE FORUM

jwblog

JWBLOG GO BACK TO YOUR KINGDOM HALL YOU PSYCHOTIC NUT CASE
YOUR BRAIN ISN'T FILLED WITH JEHOVAH'S SPIRIT ITS FILLED WITH BULLSHIT AND ITS DRIPPING ALL OVER THE FORUM

What do you have to offer beside your mumbo jumbo nonsensical meaningless words? Say something intelligent but not upon this persons topic. Remove your mask and we can go head to head upon our own topic. Are you game? This will be my last response to any of your postings otherwise.

heathen

tune into Jon stewart monday and find out if he has your answers as I'm sure the questions will be asked .

Rapunzel

I thank everyone for their replies.

Heathen, I agree that "questions will be asked." Let's hope that they are the correct ones. Have you ever heard of an author named Thomas Pynchon? He wrote Gravity's Rainbow and The Crying of Lot 49. In any case, your post reminded me of a quote by Pynchon: "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers," This quote sounds glib and trite, but, in my opinion, it is quite profound; and it explains - in stark terms - much of what is wrong with contemporary American society, This quote offers an insight into the crux of the issue.

Jwblog - You ask me if I think that democracy is a "righteous" rule. Well, it all depends. There is certainly much that is shamefully unrighteous in American democracy today, but this is nothing new. After all, Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner. I do believe in the ideas and ideals of the Enlightenment. And I believe in the principles of democracy. Unfortunately, nothing lasts forever. If you read history, you'll see that all democracies and republics eventually collapse. I read somewhere that, paradoxically, all democracies and republics contain within themselves the "germ" - the seed - of their own destruction. But I believe that, up until now, democracy is the best possible option to have been conceived as a form of government and governing.

As for merchants [and bartenders] selling alcohol to those already intoxicated, of course they should not do it. In my state, the liqour-store owner or bartender can be held legally liable. But I really don't see that as an indictment of democracy. It's more a matter of ethics and common sense.

From reading a few of your posts, I think that I know where "you are going with this." Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are waiting for a theocracy to be established. In respone, I want to share a quote by Joseph Campbell with you. It's from his book, Myths to Live By - "The second function of a living mythology [a properly operating mythology] is to offer an image of the universe that will be in accord with the knowledge of the time, the sciences and fields of action of the folk to whom the mythology is addressed. In our day, of course, the world pictures of all the major religions are at least two thousand years out of date...If...you wonder why the churches are losing their congregations, one large part of the answer surely is right here. They are inviting their flocks to enter and to find peace in a browsing-ground that never was, never will be, and in any case is surely not that of any corner of the world today. Such a mythological offering is a sure pill for at least a mild schizophrenia.

The third function of a living mythology is to validate, support, and imprint the norms of a given, specific moral order, that, namely, of the society in which the individual is to live. And the fourth is to guide him, stage by stage, in health, strength, and harmony of spirit, through the whole forseeable course of a human life."

jwblog

From reading a few of your posts, I think that I know where "you are going with this." Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that you are waiting for a theocracy to be established.

Democracy: Democracy is a government mixed with the people, as in people of that kingdom have a say as to whom their leaders will be, and vote upon the laws that they see fit to stand. You notice in Daniel that it will be a divided kingdom. You can break a kingdom in two by raising the proper voice to cry out and gather the masses to stand behind them. Even if the law they support is wicked the opinon of the masses will win if they vote upon it and gain the most votes. In America we have the freedom to do what GOD does not allow.

And yes I am waiting for the Kingdom of GOD to come into full power. It has been established and is crushing all of these other kingdoms. And you say that nothing is forever, well I have to disagree. This Kingdom will last forever and those that obide by its rule will last forever as well. I tell you Truly that this Kingdom is not a myth and it will be proven in your lifetime.

40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 "In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever.

Indo_Dude

Not sure why this thread has gone astray with the bible beating troll, but back on topic; I really hope these men that stayed silent for so many years when they were in positions of power and COULD have done something can reconcile that now 4,000 dead young men and women fought for a b.s. war that they were complicit in. Real heros stand up when it is needed. Cowards stand up and say so when popular opinion has shifted and their paychecks no longer are being signed by those they have 'moral issues' with.

Some say 'better late than never'. Tell that to the dead 4,000 soliders, their families, and thier loved ones. See if that makes them feel any better.

SixofNine

Hitler Aides "Puzzled," "Saddened" by von Stauffenberg Assassination Attempt

Wolf's Lair, Prussia, July 21, 1944 -- "This isn't the Claus von Stauffenberg I knew," said puzzled SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler about today's unsuccessful assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, echoing sentiments heard across the Nazi high command.

Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels was equally perplexed. "If Claus disagreed with the Fuhrer, why didn't he say something?" said Goebbels. "He had plenty of opportunities to speak up."

"I had lunch with Claus just a month ago," noted Party chancellery head Martin Bormann. "I thought I knew him. We were colleagues. Friends. He didn't have a single negative word to say about Hitler. Sure, he was pissed at Mengele, but that you could understand. This is so -- so sad. So disappointing."

Luftwaffe general staff chief Werner Kreipe was less circumspect. "Total scheisse ," he called von Stauffenberg. "He owed everything to Hitler. Trying to kill him was a complete betrayal of his trust." Asked why von Stauffenberg turned against Hitler, Kreipe's only comment was, "Follow the money."

--Marty Kaplan

slimboyfat

Rapunzel you ask:

Why didn't McClellan abandon Bush and speak out earlier? It has long been known that Bush's decision was a scandalous disaster on every level and from every [or almost every] perspective imaginable. Why did McClellan remain silent until now? Why did he choose the present moment to speak out?

I think this piece has a good discussion on the issue, including this point:

The right will—already has—pummel him for disloyalty. But those damning him today would have damned him even more if he'd resigned on principle three years ago. They—and the administration—would have beaten him to a pulp, the former from rage, the latter as a lesson: This is what happens when you leave and talk.
And Americans in general have a visceral and instinctive dislike for what Drudge called a snitch. This is our tradition, and also human nature.
So Mr. McClellan defends himself in the same way he defended the administration, awkwardly. He could not speak earlier because he did not oppose earlier; he came to oppose with time and on reflection. He is trying, now, to tell the truth.

Slim

jwblog

Some say 'better late than never'. Tell that to the dead 4,000 soliders, their families, and thier loved ones. See if that makes them feel any better.

Not even the United Nations could stop them, how do expect one man whom they could silence in a heartbeat do so?

A troll is one whom claims to be a JW correct? Again, for those of you that do not read, I am no part of the w.t.s. organization

What do you call a man that parades around without a shirt like you choose to depict yourself as? Arnold of California picked out the right words for guys, excuse me, things such as yourself. Why do men act like women when there are such beautiful women left and right? Freaks of nature, or excuse me, men kept for unnatural purposes might be more fitting. Again, I judge no one, your actions speak loud and clear for those such as you. You despise me.......

the faithful slave

What To Think Of Mr. Scott McClellan?

Share this