In the spirit of Halloween, list your all-time fave horror flicks. These are mine:
Nosferatu
Repulsion (perhaps not horror per se, but really creepy)
Rosemary’s Baby
Psycho
The Exorcist
The Shining
Blair Witch Project
in the spirit of halloween, list your all-time fave horror flicks.
these are mine:.
nosferatu.
In the spirit of Halloween, list your all-time fave horror flicks. These are mine:
Nosferatu
Repulsion (perhaps not horror per se, but really creepy)
Rosemary’s Baby
Psycho
The Exorcist
The Shining
Blair Witch Project
the watchtower society .
in the zionist conspiracy.
by:-jack mccracken 9.30.01. the watchtower society's membership in the united nations as an ngo since 1991, and advocacy of the un charter, is just the tip of the iceberg.
Seeker: throw in some thinly veiled anti-Semitic bile and you're bang on. This is nothing more than old-fashioned Nazi propaganda, warmed over to include the WTS in the "world-wide Jewish conspiracy". I'll bet Fat Jack believes the Holocaust was a hoax. Like I said above, this nonsense should not be dignified with debate.
the watchtower society .
in the zionist conspiracy.
by:-jack mccracken 9.30.01. the watchtower society's membership in the united nations as an ngo since 1991, and advocacy of the un charter, is just the tip of the iceberg.
This stuff is so dumb it should not be dignified with debate or even a substantive response. It is very similar to, and on an intellectual level with, the conspiracy theories of the Aryan Nations and other wacko neo-Nazi cults.
perhaps you recall the instance in the bible where samson made a wager with the philistines that they couldnt guess his riddle.
as it turned out they wheedled the answer out of him by his fiancee, but the point is that they had a wager.
since the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that we are not living in the last days of this system of things, and that this world is not facing anything remotely like the biblical apocalypse, at least not any time soon, in the spirit of such antagonism, i would like to propose a similar wager.
I agree. I simply wanted to point out that there are solid reasons for believing that the present capitalism will eventually collapse, but no reasons whatsoever for believing that this will lead to armegeddon. Even when You Know is right he's wrong.
i've recently started listening to the work of tom lehrer and, what with all the un stuff going on lately, i felt inspired to try my hand at satire for the first time [poetry's usually my thing.].
apologies in advance if the reference is obscure; i appreciate that not everyone here will be au fait with the sex pistols' catalogue, but for those that are...enjoy (i hope .
(tune: 'emi').
I love it! The Sex Pistols were one of my favourite bands of the 70s and I have always loved EMI. Great adaptation of a great song. Everyone should give it a listen.
perhaps you recall the instance in the bible where samson made a wager with the philistines that they couldnt guess his riddle.
as it turned out they wheedled the answer out of him by his fiancee, but the point is that they had a wager.
since the underlying assumption of the apostasy is that we are not living in the last days of this system of things, and that this world is not facing anything remotely like the biblical apocalypse, at least not any time soon, in the spirit of such antagonism, i would like to propose a similar wager.
I am no fan of You Know, and I think his predictions of the imminent collapse of the global economy, followed by armegeddon, are silly. However, many reputable economists have argued that there was already a global economic crisis looming before Sept. 11 and that the massive government spending on defence industries in the wake of Sept. 11 has probably served to temporarily prop up several key industries. A major recession will probably occur in the near future, and this may well be followed by further cylces of recovery and recession for some time.
Capitalism is neither sacred nor eternal, despite propaganda to the contrary. It is simply a relatively brief phase of human evolution and will eventually collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions, just as every economic system before it has run its course. Capitalism requires continual expansion which, obviously, has internal limits. Those limits evidently have not yet been reached, but trans-national corporations will eventually run out of room for expansion, resulting in a truly fundamental crisis for the global economy. This will not, however, lead to armegeddon. On the contrary, a much better, freer and more egalitarian world will emerge from capitalism's ashes. Things will get worse before they get better, but the overall trend of human history is clearly towards greater and greater freedom and equality.
You Know seems unable to contemplate a world based on anything but the present capitalist system and therefore concludes that its collapse leaves no alternative but armegeddon. I think there are solid reasons for faith in the ability of human beings to continue evolving well beyond the eventual demise of the present system.
Bring on the collapse.
equal time, and given the spirit of the season, who is your favorite dead performer?.
mine, buddy holly, though he just kinda laid there and oozed all over the stage.. yerusalyim.
"vanity!
Bob Marley, Billie Holliday and Joey Ramone.
us, a civilized or a barbaric country?
i am fully aware i might upset some people on the board by asking what i do in this thread, and i wouldnt be surprised if someone would accuse me of attacking americans again.
i do, however, have a reason for asking and my question is an honest one.
The U.S. federal and state governments provide massive hand-outs to multi-national corporations. These corporations, and the governments which they essentially own, preach market disciplines for the poor, and constantly attack any form of public spending on social programs, yet they demand and get all sorts of subsidies, grants and various hand-outs from governments. Corporate welfare is thriving in the U.S.. Canada is essentially the same, though marginally better in some respects.
me: "i see that you have been getting some adverse press about the un.".
mum: "it doesn't surprise me, the un hate us!".
me: "no, let me explain, the society are registered with the un as an ngo and are bound to uphold the principals of the un.".
This is no doubt what many Dubs believe, but registration as an NGO with the U.N. has nothing whatsoever to do with taxes or tax exemptions for registered charities. The U.N. does not levy taxes. Taxes are levied by national, state and local governments and each country has its own tax laws and its own rules for registering charities and exempting them from taxation. In fact, in many countries non-profit organizations which are essentially "political" in nature are disqualified from tax exemption. Many of the organizations which are registered as NGOs would thus be disqualified from tax exemptions for which they would otherwise qualify because they are engaged in political lobbying.
In Canada, for example, there are thousands of registered charities which are tax exempt. Few, if any, are registered as NGOs.
several posters have asked what i thought of the.
revelations about the wt being associated with the un.
as an ngo so i thought i might make a brief comment on.
YK: Twice on this thread you have suggested that the decision of the WBTS to become an NGO may have been made by a wayward faction of the Legal Department. That is highly unlikely.
First of all, the decision to become an NGO was fundamentally a political policy decision, not a legal decision. The role of the Legal Department was likely marginal (probably confined to a consideration of the possible tax consequences of the decision). Secondly, any ETHICAL lawyer merely provides his client with advice and options, but leaves it to the client to make the decision. This is not a complex ethical issue - it is basic, 1st year law school professional ethics. In a corporate legal department such as that of the WBTS, there is a always a chain of command: the Legal Department is run by a senior lawyer who has responsibility for advising the governing body of the corporation on legal matters. The senior lawyer assigns files to his staff lawyers, who in turn research the matter and provide the senior lawyer with advice. The senior lawyer then provides his client (the governing body) with an opinion letter setting out the advice of the Legal Department and, if necessary, meets with his client to discuss options. The client then makes the decision - not the lawyers.
An important political / policy decision such as this would clearly have been made by the Governing Body. If the Legal Department was involved at all, it would only have been to provide advice to the Governing Body on technical legal issues related to their decision. This is not a case where you can simply blame the lawyers.