I'll take Britain's parliament over our Republic any day. When our founding fathers were looking for ways to stop mob rule, they should of considered parliament... a much better system.
As for the war, it's the "flag wavers" responsible for this war... Bush and Congress wouldn't have committed themselves to this war had they not had public approval... mostly from Republicans who have never known their asses from a hole in the ground.
The causes of the failure of this Republic is the result of an uneducated public; I hear them daily repeating Fox News and Rush Limbaugh because they actually think these sources are accurate... what a laugh!
I wrote the paper daily before the Iraq invasion, long before predicting the outcome; but you "patriots" who supported this foolishness were too busy getting educated from the Rush Limbaugh "institute of conservative studies" to actually read a damned book or two and figure things out for yourselves. You flag wavers wanted this war, and now you've given it to all of us... mob rule at it's finest.
But I think the thing that really baffles the mind, is now that things are clear, crystal clear that Bush is an absolute idiot, and that the Republican Party philosophy has shown once again that it is a failure, I still hear you guys who've caused this failure act as if you have something to offer this country. Good lord Republicans, why aren't you ashamed of yourselves for the catastrophic mess you caused? Do you not feel ashamed for the mess this administration has placed on this great country?
Nah, there all of you are yet still waving your flags, declaring your patriotism while yet again doing everything in your power to destroy it. Please, why don't you just go away?
Posts by dawg
-
64One American on International Politics
by milligal init seems the entire world feels that americans are not only ignorant of international events but also void of any sense regarding their own politics.
after reading one spicey thread on the topic of our apparent unwitting density i had a couple things to say.
(parental discretion advised for political incorrectness):.
-
-
dawg
-
12
Maybe I didn't love you... Quite as often as I should have...
by cognac inand maybe i didn't treat you.
quite as good as i should have.
if i made you feel second best.
-
-
dawg
They deserve an ass whooping the way they've done us... all our JW families.
-
17
You Don't Want to Tell People About Jehovah?
by cognac intold hubby that i won't go out in service because i believe that the preaching work was already done in the 1st century.. he said "you don't want to tell people about jehovah?".
i said "no".
i also said that when we move i have no intentions of going back to the kh.
-
-
dawg
Ask him if that's what he thinks you do when preaching?
-
103
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo ini have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.
although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.
the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".
-
-
dawg
What, we get no reply about the "celebrated scholars"?
-
25
Letter From My Elder Brother 2 Years Ago ; My Reply to Him
by flipper inas some of you know, me and my wife 2 years ago were accused of " circumstancial fornication" 1 month before we were married because my ex wife ( divorced 1998) and my youngest daughter , both witnesses, drove an hour and a half away from where they lived to find me at my fiances house at 9:30 a.m. in the morning to take my fiance to get her tires fixed.
both my fiance and me were fully clothed !
then my ex-wife ran and gossipped to my witness parents and older siblings about it , bringing about them writing condemning letters to me ; without even checking out the accuracy of the false charges.
-
-
dawg
His letter is a sacrilege, if I'm using the correct word. He commits blasphemy by saying you aren't serving Jehovah because you don't follow a man made religion. That's blasphemous!
He's comparing two things that aren't alike, man made religious groups can not be followed yet you still could be serving God. As a matter of fact, you could be displeasing God by following certain religious groups.
I think I'd ask him to be specific, ask him where you've quite serving God because you didn't realize you'd ever stopped. If he says by not being a JW you're not serving God you can then point out to him that the two are completely different things.
I know he has some BS way out of this question, but I'd be interested in hearing the man blaspheme one more time. -
40
Hi everyone! im also a newbie here.
by dhand inhi everyone, thought it was time to say hi after nearly a year lurking on this site!!
abit about me... i was born into the jw's and have been baptised for about 15yrs and was appointed as an ms about a year ago.
i have been a die hard jw for the last few years, but because of the arrogant and unloving attitude of certain 'spirit appointed' men within the cong and circuit i began to wounder if what i had really was 'the truth' and caused me to do some digging on some of the fundamental teachings.
-
-
dawg
Welcome dude, good to be free though isn't it?
-
103
Jeremiah and the 70 years. Jewish exile or Babylonian rule?
by digderidoo ini have never until a few days ago been able to reconcile the 70 year prophecy with the 587/6 bce date for jerusalems destruction.
although a post was about this in a previous thread by a@g , i would like to explore this more.. when the 70 years are applied to babylonian rule, rather than the jewish exile everything seems to make sense.. to ellaborate for those who haven't come across it, this is how 587/6 does match the 70 year prophecy.. i hope a@g doesn't mind but i have cut and paste his post:-.
the 587 date does match the bible.... (jeremiah 25:11) 11 and all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of babylon seventy years.".
-
-
dawg
This is one of the funniest things I've ever read on this site... Good God this is funny!
"Celebrated WT scholars have most certainly proved beyond any shadow of doubt that 607 BCE was the calender year for the Fall and the beginning of the Gentile Times ending in 1914 CE all because they have payed close attention to that definite historic period of seventy years".
I would humbly ask the so called scholar, exactly who there "celebrated scholars" are in the WT organization?
Awakened007-This is really important to me also, I mean, I've heard 1914 since I was a child, and almost couldn't believe it when I found out the 607 year was inaccurate. It's the cornerstone, the most damning evince that everything they say prophetically isn't true.. But I agree with you and see your point, the evidence of that is in all their failures. -
62
Tony Snow died today...
by zeroday inafter his long battle with cancer tony snow died today age 53 he left a wife and 3 children my thoughts are with him and his family...
-
-
dawg
Sad that he died so young...
-
30
If You could go out in Style,How would you leave the JW Organization Again?
by SuperApostateGirl inwell i'll start;.
1. i would stand up,light a joint and announce that i am "bad association".
2. feeling now liberated i would rat on every elders child (cause who wouldn't).
-
-
dawg
I'd say that I was compiling a list of all the dubs... get their addresses and send mailers.
-
42
Rutherford......the Pimp?
by Gill inis it true, as i was reading yesterday, that rutherford provided a brothel for the male members of the bethel?.
i will provide a link later when i get back!.
-
-
dawg
Satanus, there's no way to collaborate the membership of a secret organization, so we're left with the facts we can prove in an attempt to answer our questions... here's the facts, Russell used Masonic imagery, he was buried under a pyramid next to a lodge, he based predictions on the Great Pyramid among a plethora of evidence the man was a mason.
Was he a Mason? Who knows, but he damn sure used Masonic themes... I may not ever call the man a Mason, but I'd doubt it not if it were to come to light he was and find it way less than offensive that someone would say they have seen things that may indicate the man was a Mason.
But you're right, a person making a claim should have conclusive evidence before saying something is a fact... remembering all the while that this isn't a court of law, he's not being convicted of a crime; it's no crime to be a Mason.
So, here's the point, a person says such and such, offers evidence that the premise may be true, and if there is little if any refutation that the claims are incorrect; is it a mark against that individual to say that they heard such things? I think not.
True, we have plenty of proof of the wacky things that have been done by the WT leadership, no need to make things up... but, saying I've read such and such and presenting hard evidence that these things may be true, is no harm and no foul. Saying something is a absolute fact without irrefutable evidence isn't the best thing to do... but saying you've read or heard something.... I think that's different.
That said, I will continue to say that there's evidence that Russell may have been a Mason, I will present such evidence if asked for it; I will continue to say Rutherford and Russell may have been womanizers and in the case of Rutherford a drunk-I feel such evidence must be considered.
In the case of this brothel, it may be true but the evidence is way too thin... (hearsay).. yet look again at Russell's connection with the Masons... pretty hard evidence there to present that evidence.