nvrgnbk
JoinedPosts by nvrgnbk
-
-
-
-
4
Of Frogs and Demons
by winnower inrevelation 16:16 (message bible) the frog-demons gathered the kings together at the place called in hebrew armageddon.
sounds like a bilderberg meeting to me!.
do take note...there isa controlling entity behind the kings....... .
-
-
nvrgnbk
nvrgk - how in the world (well, out of the world) is old Applegate and the his castrated star voyagers doing?
Donning the finest footwear in the Milky Way.
-
36
Cigars
by besty in...and so to the end of a great evening with new friends and a familiar lover.. my feet are up and the sounds of socal stillness punctuated by occasional dreams departing from lax.. is there more to life than friends, lovers, brandy and hand rolled cuban companions?.
-
-
nvrgnbk
A nice Rocky Patel 1990 Vintage with some Glenfarclas Cask Strength...
that could lead to lasting friendship.
-
74
How do we know that humans have been around for more than 6000 years?
by inkling inafter a conversation with my dad last night, i realized that it is fairly.
easy for jws to weasel out of issues involving the fossil record because.
a) the wt has very little to say on the subject and b) witnesses are.
-
-
nvrgnbk
I do suspect, however, that the quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates is to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us.
Isn't it possible, probable even, that the vast majority of anthroplogists and archaeologists are not on a "quest to prove Man has been around far longer than the Bible indicates" or attempting "to destroy faith in the message that God is making things right for us" but are simply recording their findings?
Do you really believe that they're all in on some Satanic conspiracy to discredit the Bible and destroy faith, snowbird?
-
4
Of Frogs and Demons
by winnower inrevelation 16:16 (message bible) the frog-demons gathered the kings together at the place called in hebrew armageddon.
sounds like a bilderberg meeting to me!.
do take note...there isa controlling entity behind the kings....... .
-
-
nvrgnbk
Crap!
You've foiled our plans, once again!
-
29
Do you get upset when people don't believe that same way you do?
by loosie inis it a normal reaction to get mad when you talk to someone who doesn't believe that way you do?.
the reason i ask is that i don't believe in the most common christianity.
when i come across a person and they ask how i feel about something and i tell them how i feel.
-
-
nvrgnbk
I find that when an atheist or someone who believes in evolution makes a post...if you do not agree with him/her they will jump all over you and beat you with a hammer. AND then their friends will come in and hack you to pieces and throw your body parts to the lions. NOT JOKING
Amen!
May the Lord exterminate them all!
-
74
How do we know that humans have been around for more than 6000 years?
by inkling inafter a conversation with my dad last night, i realized that it is fairly.
easy for jws to weasel out of issues involving the fossil record because.
a) the wt has very little to say on the subject and b) witnesses are.
-
-
nvrgnbk
The Chinese had a detailed chronology of their dynasties which went back to at least 2952 B.C., and there was no mention of a flood.
My otherwise intelligent father had no answer for this.
So, as expected, he discounted their chronology as flawed.
Besides, what good are some dead Chinese dudes?
Only Jehovah can give him everlasting life.
-
74
How do we know that humans have been around for more than 6000 years?
by inkling inafter a conversation with my dad last night, i realized that it is fairly.
easy for jws to weasel out of issues involving the fossil record because.
a) the wt has very little to say on the subject and b) witnesses are.
-
-
nvrgnbk
If I know an automotive mechanic that has been working on cars for thirty years and he's gained a reputation from even his competitors as skilled and trustworthy, I won't consider his opinion on automotive matters to be infallible but I'll show respect for his experience.
If he and three other equally experienced mechanics agree that my car has transmission problems, they may be onto something.
One wants to rebuild the tranny.
One wants to install a new one.
One wants to install a salvaged one.
One thinks that it's not worth putting any money into fixing it and advises me to consider buying a new car.
They have unique opinions about my situation, but there is a consensus regarding the problem.
If I insist that a paint job will make the car run better, because I like red cars instead of blue cars, I am deluding myself.
If I think that their opinons are rubbish and that they're conspiring against me because they are anti-paint, I am insane.
I think that those that stubbornly ignore all of the peer-reviewed findings of archaeologists and anthropologists are equally insane.
-
49
Summer is here and I am Mean Mommie
by mrsjones5 in*rolls eyes* my dear hubby rented 3 movies, one of them was "juno".
i kindly requested that the children were not to see that movie.
just a moment ago my hubby came down stairs alone and i asked where were the children.
-
-
nvrgnbk
Rule #1 when offering advice to another parent on how to raise their kids:
Never offer advice to another parent on how to raise their kids
Good luck to you and your husband, Josie.
P.S.- Like 6of9 said, we tend to underestimate kids in general.
-
9
Bush- Hoping to be vindicated by historians for erradicating terrorism
by nvrgnbk innevermind that most contemporary historians view him as the worst u.s. prez ever.citing history, bush suggests his policies will one day be vindicatedby dan eggenwashington post staff writer .
monday, june 9, 2008; page a03 meet george w. bush, time traveler.
he's in poland in 1939 as nazi tanks advance on warsaw, then flying with his navy-pilot father to battle imperial japan.
-
-
nvrgnbk
Nevermind that most contemporary historians view him as the worst U.S. Prez ever.
Citing History, Bush Suggests His Policies Will One Day Be Vindicated
By Dan Eggen Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 9, 2008; Page A03Meet George W. Bush, time traveler.
He's in Poland in 1939 as Nazi tanks advance on Warsaw, then flying with his Navy-pilot father to battle imperial Japan. He's alongside Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, William McKinley on his deathbed and Franklin D. Roosevelt on D-Day. He lingers with Harry S. Truman, another U.S. president deeply unpopular in his time.
President Bush leaps forward as well, envisioning a distant future in which Iraq is a tranquil democracy, Palestinians live peaceably alongside Israelis and terrorism is a tactic of the past.
"Imagine if a president had stood before the first graduating class of this academy five decades ago and told the Cadet Wing that by the end of the 20th century, the Soviet Union would be no more, communism would stand discredited and the vast majority of the world's nations would be democracies," Bush urged graduates at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs nearly two weeks ago.
As the door begins to close on his tenure, Bush is increasingly drawing on selected events of the past to argue that history will vindicate him on Iraq, terrorism, trade and other controversial issues.
Historical analogies have become a staple of Bush speeches and interviews this year, whether he is addressing regional leaders in Egypt or talking to workers at an office park in suburban St. Louis. Bush will continue this historical focus in a visit to Europe this week, where he will commemorate the Berlin Airlift in Germany and deliver a speech in Paris marking the 60th anniversary of the Marshall Plan.
White House aides say Bush, who majored in history at Yale, likes to emphasize historical comparisons because they are easy for the public to understand and illustrate in dramatic fashion how differently future generations may come to view him.
Unfortunately for the president, many historians have already reached a conclusion. In an informal survey of scholars this spring, just two out of 109 historians said Bush would be judged a success; a majority deemed him the "worst president ever."
"It's all he has left," said Millsaps College history professor Robert S. McElvaine, who conducted the survey for the History News Network of George Mason University. "When your approval ratings are down around 20 to 28 percent and the candidate of your own party is trying to hide from being seen with you, history is your only hope."
Princeton University historian Sean Wilentz, who wrote a widely cited Rolling Stone essay about Bush in 2006 titled "The Worst President in History?," said last week that the president's historical arguments can be effective because they are difficult to disprove. "By just saying, 'In the long run this is going to look great,' it makes it very hard to respond to," he said.
White House officials dispute any link between Bush's recent emphasis on history and his disapproval rating, which is now the highest of any president since Gallup began asking the question in the 1930s. Current and former aides note that Bush is a longtime history buff who, in the middle of his presidency, met regularly with historians and other intellectuals to discuss predecessors including Washington and Nixon.
"His interest in history predated his low approval ratings," said Peter H. Wehner, the former White House aide who arranged those meetings. "It's not like he's grabbing for history; it's been a constant theme."
Earlier in his presidency, Bush shrugged off questions about his long-term legacy. When Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward asked him in December 2003 how history would judge the Iraq war, Bush responded: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."
Yet the recent pattern is clear. In May alone, Bush employed broad historical references in about a dozen speeches and interviews, looking back to the middle of the 20th century and forward to the middle of the 21st. He has focused on similar topics during private GOP fundraisers, according to White House aides. "People can understand it, and people can then understand when the president talks about 60 years from now what we could be enjoying," said press secretary Dana Perino.
A week before his address at the Air Force Academy, Bush told paratroopers at Fort Bragg, N.C., that "when the history books are written . . . they will show that freedom prevailed." And during his May trip to the Middle East, Bush told Arab leaders: "Just imagine what this region could look like in 60 years."
Presidential counselor Ed Gillespie said that many of Bush's recent remarks have been tied to specific events, such as the 60th anniversary of Israel, and that there is no "retrospective effort" afoot at the White House. "It's only natural that you would tap into the common history and experiences of our country to derive lessons," he said.
Vice President Cheney has also argued that history will vindicate Bush. Speaking at a Washington luncheon last week, Cheney recalled that former president Gerald R. Ford was "attacked from every conceivable angle" for pardoning Richard M. Nixon, but he said that "the consensus now is that Gerald Ford did the right thing."
Former Bush political adviser Karl Rove wrote in National Review last year that the president will be viewed as "a far-sighted leader who confronted the key test of the 21st century." Rove ticked off successes such as the remaking of humanitarian aid efforts in Africa and the transformation of the political complexion of the federal judiciary.
One of Bush's lengthiest recent discussions about his legacy occurred in an unlikely venue on May 2, when he took questions from employees at a technology firm near St. Louis. Bush said that he "never wanted to be a war president" and that "sometimes you get dealt a hand you didn't expect." He added: "The question is, how do you play it? And here's how I'm playing it."
He talked about the World War II service of his father, former president George H.W. Bush, and how the elder Bush fought against a nation, Japan, that is now a key U.S. ally. Referring to the 1940s, President Bush said: "If you'd have thought an American president would stand up and say, 'My close buddy in dealing with the threats to our countries would be the prime minister of Japan,' they'd say, 'Man, you're nuts, hopelessly idealistic.' . . . I have found that to be one of the ironic twists of history."
Yet even as he sought to highlight similarities between past and current conflicts, Bush also stressed the differences. "This is a different kind of war, and it's hard for some Americans to get their hands around it," he said. ". . . World War II, there was Germany and Japan and Italy. The Cold War, a big standoff between the Soviet Union and the United States. There's no nation involved in this war."
Many historians accuse Bush of cherry-picking history to bolster his arguments, in what the late author David Halberstam last year called a "history rummage sale."
One controversial example emerged during a speech at the Israeli parliament on May 15, when Bush compared talking with "terrorists and radicals," including Iran, to the appeasement of Nazis before World War II.
The reference was widely seen as an attack on Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) -- who has said that if elected president, he would talk with Iran's leaders -- although the White House said that was not Bush's intent. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the presumptive GOP nominee, seized on Bush's words to attack Obama.
The argument was muddied by subsequent events, however, including news that Israel has been talking indirectly since 2007 with Syria, which the United States has designated as a state sponsor of terrorism. The comparison was also undermined by the Bush administration's negotiations with states such as North Korea.
Some historians are particularly critical of Bush's frequent references to Truman, who had an even lower approval rating than Bush amid opposition to the Korean War. They say Truman's place in history is elevated by his roles in leading the victory in World War II, creating institutions such as the United Nations and implementing the Marshall Plan, which helped rebuild Europe.
"The only connection between Harry Truman and George Bush is that they left office with low opinion numbers," said historian Douglas Brinkley of Rice University. "That's a very thin reed."
There are dissenters who argue that liberal scholars have let their politics influence their views and that it is too early to render a verdict on Bush. "We're still arguing about Grant, for goodness' sake," said Vincent J. Cannato, a history professor at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. "If all historians are thinking one thing, you have to think something's wrong."
Most agree, however, that Iraq will be central to any future assessments. In his critical book about his time as Bush's press secretary, Scott McClellan recounts a conversation in 2003 when "the story line was first emerging among the media that the outcome in Iraq would determine his legacy more than anything else."
"I asked Bush about this," McClellan writes. "He quickly and confidently replied, No. The war on terror will determine my legacy and how Iraq fits into that will determine my legacy.' "
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060802255.html
