sorry...double post
Justitia Themis
JoinedPosts by Justitia Themis
-
100
WTS attends as a NGO to OSCE in July- 4 branches present!
by yknot inso i was just cruising www.extj.com/foro.
mary received a interesting bit of osce information via a brother (peter) from germany....... http://www.extj.com/foro/showthread.php?t=14643.
here is the pdf she has uploaded..... http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2009/07/38763_en.pdf.
-
-
-
100
WTS attends as a NGO to OSCE in July- 4 branches present!
by yknot inso i was just cruising www.extj.com/foro.
mary received a interesting bit of osce information via a brother (peter) from germany....... http://www.extj.com/foro/showthread.php?t=14643.
here is the pdf she has uploaded..... http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2009/07/38763_en.pdf.
-
-
Justitia Themis
NGO DPI - department of information gnat issue compared to Christendom telling leaders what laws they should or shouldn't do and having political candidates etc.
Do we condemn Paul for his involvement with Rome being a roman citizen and using this to appeal to Rome the UN of his day?
Reniaa
Apples and oranges. Paul was exercising a legal right, attached to his Roman citizenship, to access a higher level of judicial review; in short, he appealed his case. Rome was NOT the UN of Paul's day.
-
100
WTS attends as a NGO to OSCE in July- 4 branches present!
by yknot inso i was just cruising www.extj.com/foro.
mary received a interesting bit of osce information via a brother (peter) from germany....... http://www.extj.com/foro/showthread.php?t=14643.
here is the pdf she has uploaded..... http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2009/07/38763_en.pdf.
-
-
Justitia Themis
They should be disfellowshipped for joining the OSCE (the defunct Warsaw Pact), because to join, they must agree to support its aims, which are political...including furthering "democracy." That's why they are so heavy into election monitoring.
The GBs actions are no different from those of a JW who might join the YMCA, which, as we all know, they forbid for the following reason: if one joins the Y, then one is supporting ALL the mission statement of the Y.
This was the issue that split me from the congregation.
*** g978/22p.31OSCE—WhatIsIt?WillItSucceed?***
OSCE—WhatIsIt?WillItSucceed?
By Awake! correspondent in Portugal
AFTER World War II, a power struggle arose between Western democratic capitalist countries and the Eastern Communist Soviet bloc. Each bloc developed its own security organization: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in the West and the Warsaw Pact in the East.
By 1975 the Cold War had thawed enough for 35 States, including the United States and Russia, to sign what came to be called the Helsinki Agreement. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was born. It was a multilateral forum for dialogue and negotiation between the two blocs.
At the Budapest Summit in 1994, the CSCE changed its name to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Today, it is composed of 54 participating States, including the United States, Canada, and all the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Its
ObjectiveThe objective of the member nations of the OSCE is to guarantee the security of Europe as well as to foster the implementation of human rights, disarmament, democratic freedoms and the management of regional conflict.
A summit meeting of the OSCE was held in Lisbon, Portugal, on December 2-3, 1996. At first, attention was focused on NATO, since several NATO members, including the United States, are in favor of the expansion of NATO to include more nations from Central and Eastern Europe. But rather than support the enlargement of NATO to include former Eastern bloc allies, Russia and some of her former Eastern bloc allies want the OSCE to become the forum for matters of European security.
The Russian prime minister, Viktor Chernomyrdin, said at the meeting: "We are in favor of strengthening the OSCE, which is the only place in Europe where all States can work together. It is the best international place for discussing security and defense."
The radiant afternoon sun seemed to create a climate of general optimism at the close of the summit, despite the comments of the press regarding its nebulous results. Whatever success or failure the OSCE may realize, peace lovers everywhere can be assured that true peace and security will soon be realized earth wide under the rule of God’s Kingdom.—Psalm 72:1, 7, 8.
-
62
The status of women in early Christianity
by Leolaia inthe watchtower society maintains a very strict gender dichotomy in its organization.
this is news to no one.
although men -- in many cases, unqualified men -- are expected to reach for advancement within local congregations (e.g.
-
-
Justitia Themis
great thread...don't know how I missed this one!
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
Justinia I guess you can't see it....but I'm not surprised. You admitted you are out for what is best for you, yet condemn those who think differently than you.. for the same "me first" attitude. It's ok for you, but not for them. I do not agree that what you want is best for the majority. I think that in the long run it will be harmfull to all of us.
Dear Coffee-black:
When I said I couldn't "see it," I was being self-deprecating, and attempting to be nice. I'm no longer interested in being nice. :)
I can't "see" your argument, because you lack an argument; you just ramble emotionally. You STILL have not explained how you made the illogical link from my post concerning what POLITICIANS think to indicting MY character, and you never will, because there is no link and your assertion is a catastrophic failure.
Not one vowel in my post demonstrated a "me first" attitude, so stuff it.
I haven't "condemned" anyone, including you, so spare me, and save your victim mentality for the KH.
You're inept at analyzing information, and when your weak arguments are pointed out, you get pissy. I'm ssooooo glad I no longer attend the KH and have to pretend to like people like you.
Regards,
Justitia, aka double-shot latte, one splenda, no foam, from a boutique coffee shop, ;)
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
For example, I don't know of anyone who actually believes the'death panel' scenario, even here at JWD
...the power of semantics journey-on...36% either believe or are not sure...
Do you believe "death panels" are part of the proposed health care reforms?
Yes 23% 15812
No 64% 43556
Don't know 13% 8894
Total Votes: 68262
http://www.cnn.com /http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_08/019488.php
REPUBLICANS LOVED THEIR DEATH PANELS.... If our political discourse were in any way sane, the "death panel" nonsense would be a punch line, evidence of ridiculous people making up pathetic lies. The very phrase would be evidence of a bankrupt, comically desperate movement. It would be, to borrow a phrase, the right's "Waterloo."
And yet, conservatives not only take this insanity seriously, they're actually using it as the basis to oppose health care reform. Given this, Monthly alum Amy Sullivan raises an observation that would, in theory, effectively end the conversation.
You would think that if Republicans wanted to totally mischaracterize a health care provision and demagogue it like nobody's business, they would at least pick something that the vast majority of them hadn't already voted for just a few years earlier. Because that's not just shameless, it's stupid.
Yes, that's right. Remember the 2003 Medicare prescription drug bill, the one that passed with the votes of 204 GOP House members and 42 GOP Senators? Anyone want to guess what it provided funding for? Did you say counseling for end-of-life issues and care? Ding ding ding!!
Let's go to the bill text, shall we? "The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning." The only difference between the 2003 provision and the infamous Section 1233 that threatens the very future and moral sanctity of the Republic is that the first applied only to terminally ill patients. Section 1233 would expand funding so that people could voluntarily receive counseling before they become terminally ill.
Chuck Grassley, who yesterday pulled the measure on end-of-life counseling from consideration, voted for the '03 bill. John Boehner, the first GOP leader to raise the specter of "government-encouraged euthanasia," also voted for the '03 bill.
Greg Sargent noted that Rep. John Mica (R) of Florida voted for the 2003 bill, "and last week he denounced the current House measure for creating Medicare-funded 'death counselors.'"
If reality had any meaning in modern politics, these "death panel" clowns would be laughed out of the building, and humiliated for life. Instead, they're not only taken seriously, they're getting media attention, they're influencing GOP activists, and in Grassley's case, they're shaping health care reform policy.
There will be no consequences for their reckless stupidity. There never are.
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
journey-on,
I think you misunderstood my post/s. I am against a socialized healthcare system as well. I was accused of being selfish because of that statement... and a few comments above, Justinia said
"The only thing I trust officials to do is benefit themselves; I just align myself with the party who, in benefitting themselves, will benefit me."
I was just pointing out the irony.
Coffee
I don't see the irony at all. You asked me who I "trusted." I said neither, and explained why. How do we get from the motivations of the political elite to you? In addition, I articulated that I aligned myself with the party I feel best supports the middle-class and not the elite; I assume the vast majority of people on this DB are middle-class; therefore, what benefits me, benefits the masses. So I'm not understanding how supporting the party or policy that supports a thriving middle-class, sometimes to the detriment of the elite, is being selfish. ...perhaps this is a forest-for-the trees moment for me. ????
BTW, I'm against a socialized healthcare system also; I don't want the government owning hospitals. I am for social healthcare, which is when tax dollars are used to pay bills submitted by private hospitals. Your use of the term "socialized healthcare" is an emotionally loaded term that conservative strategists have encouraged right-wing politicians and pundits to use so as to demonize the Obama plan. They deducted that the "average Joe" wouldn't understand the difference, and the term would bring visions of Russia streaming to peoples minds.
Again, by the number of times the term has been bantered on this dicussion board alone, it appears their calculation was spot-on.
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
Why should we trust them then?
Coffee
I don't trust either party or any Congressperson. I look for someone who, in acheiving his/her goals, will benefit me; I capitalize on his/her greed. The modern Progressives party is the Democratic party. There are still some bleeding-heart liberals who think that if we can just educate the public, they will respond to logic and will vote accordingly. I suspect Pres. Obama is one them; I do not hold that position.
Progressives/Democrats feel that the more stable, happy and content the middle-class, the more secure their political positions. In other words, if the average Joe has beer, porn, food, a house and medical care, he will be even less interested in politics. In addition, they are aware that history has documented that a weak middle class leads to government officials, or their wives, literally losing their heads.
Their goals/viewpoints benefit me, because they will attempt to keep a strong middle-class.
The Republican party has, in modern history, been the champion of big business and has since the 20s espoused a let-them-eat-cake mentality. That definitely does not benefit me.
The only thing I trust officials to do is benefit themselves; I just align myself with the party who, in benefitting themselves, will benefit me.
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
Unfortunately, governmental officials do not think much of the average Joe, because the average Joe IS"prone to fits of enthusiasm." There is nothing factually incorrect in the passage I posted; the problem is with the average Joe.
Governmental officials do not think much of the average American, because the average American has repeatedly demonstrated that he/she is not going to do the work necessary to be an informed voter. Instead, the public will become angry about officials not reading bills when those same officials slip a talking point to a radio talk show host to broadcast the issue to get it into mainstream media, and the public will respond as expected.
It's almost a calculation; you feed a point of Limbaugh, in X amount of hours it hits his show, in X amount of hours it hits CNN, in X amount of hours the average Joe is 'outraged that his/her Congressperson didn't read the bill.' ...otherwise known as the manufacturing of dissent.
-
298
Why is the US so afraid of Social Health Care?
by eyeslice ini just don't get why the us is so afraid of social health care, and is so opposed to the canadian and british models.
the plain fact is that there are far more americans without access to health care than the combined populations of sweden, norway, denmark and finland.. a measure of the maturity of any society has to be how it sees fit to re-apportion its wealth.. we are quick to criticise african leaders who line their own pockets but leave the masses in poverty but cannot see that blindly following capitalist principles is much the same.
if we live in a wealthy society then part of that wealth has to be put back into society as a whole.. .
-
-
Justitia Themis
DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER! I'm simply posting what your governmental officials think about the average Joe.
This excerpt is from a history book and discusses the historical Progressive Period (when intellectuals thought that if we could increase the educational level of the average citizen, they could be informed voters) through the Roaring Twenties (which roared for big business only, was a time of deregulation, a decline of labor and set the stage for the Depression as business raped the land.)
"Among the changes ws the disintegration of Progressivism as a political movement and body of thought. The government's success in whipping up mass hysteria during the war seemed to undermine the very foundation of democratic thought--the idea of the rational, self-directed citizen...[d]uring the1920s, Walter Lippmann published two of the most penetrating indictments of democracy ever written, Public Opinion and The Phantom Public, which repudiated the Progressive hope of applying "intelligence" to social problems in a mass democracy. Lippman claimed, the American voter is ill-informed and prone to fits of enthusiasm. Not only were modern problems beyond the understanding of ordinary men and women (a sentiment that had earlier led Lippmann to favor adminstration by experts), but the independent citizen was nothing but a myth. Like advertising copywriters and journalists, he continued, the government had perfected the art of creating and manipulating public opinion--a process Lippman called the "manufacturing of consent."
Give Me Liberty: An American History, Eric Foner, W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2006, p. 670.