Simon, I’ve been to North Carolina, trust me, it was a major disaster area long before Bush said it was. But you’re correct, it is his fault.
Freeman
freeman
JoinedPosts by freeman
-
12
President Bush declared North Carolina a major disaster area
by MrMoe inhttp://www.cnn.com/2003/weather/09/18/isabel/index.html
president bush declared north carolina a major disaster area, clearing the way for federal aid to the storm-battered state.
the governors of virginia, north carolina, delaware, maryland, pennsylvania and new jersey have declared states of emergency.
-
-
-
10
Why is a trauma to move out from an organisation like the j.w ?
by arancia ini was converted j.w about 15years ago but last year i got to know what sort of people they were in reality.
my husband and i made the decision in five minutes.within few days we sent a very brief letter that stated in few words that we were living the oganisation disgusted for what we so in tv on channel 9 the previous sunday.
we reach very fast that decision because we freely and voluntarily got in ,therefore with the same spirit got out.
-
-
freeman
Being a JW is much the same as living behind the iron-curtain was some years ago.
You are warned never to listen to the pleadings of anyone who is part of that decadent outside world, or even listen to your own inner voice that says something is so very very wrong. Behind the iron-curtain of the Watchtower your life is complete, beyond it you are on your own. One reason that it is so traumatic to move beyond the iron-curtain of the Watchtower is because the organization is so all encompassing, so all knowing, and without you every realizing it, it is also quite totalitarian.
In fact the Dark Tower is the living embodiment of the word totalitarian. The Tower has something to say on just about every aspect of your life, the way you dress, groom your hair, spend your money, spend any free time, the type and manner of sex you have with your mate. You name the subject; there is most likely already a commentary on it from the Dark Tower.
I believe that one of the biggest attractions to this cult is that everything is so very simple; just follow the rules written and otherwise and you will be OK. Your world is laid out in such a way that many of your very basic needs are met. You have instant friends, and that means that you need never develop real relationships based on anything other then the fact that you are all in the same group. Too bad you will never know what a true friend is. But who needs true friends when you have a have a grand purpose. Just don’t leave the club or else!
At least you already know what you will be doing on the weekend and for that matter much of the week too. Yes, you will be quite busy, you have a schedule, you need to get your hours in and don’t forget about underlining your tower, very important, it shows spiritual maturity.
When reality creeps in as it inevitably does from time to time you need not fear. You have built in mental defensives and also others are there to help you adjust to the correct group-think and put you back on track. All is well, problems will be minimized for you and what can’t be glossed over will be fixed any time now as long as you just hang on a little bit more. We are so very close to the end you know.
So why is it so hard to leave, why is it so devastating? For all the reasons I talked about above and I’m sure a good many that I never even thought of. Bottom line, don’t join a cult, they are very hard to leave.
Freeman
-
36
Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth...
by Aztec inwashington, sept. 17 president bush said wednesday that there was no evidence that former iraqi president saddam hussein was involved in the sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against iraq.
theres no question that saddam hussein had al-qaida ties, the president said.
but he also said, weve had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with september the 11th.. the presidents comment was the administrations firmest assertion that there was no proven link between saddam and sept. 11. it came after vice president dick cheney clouded the issue sunday by saying, its not surprising people make that connection.. speaking on nbcs meet the press, cheney also repeated an allegation, doubted by many in the intelligence community, that mohamed atta, the lead sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior iraqi intelligence official in prague in the czech republic five months before sept. 11, 2001.. weve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it, cheney said sunday.
-
-
freeman
Here is something interesting concerning the linkage of Saddam to 9-11.
These are the words of our latest presidential candidate, General Wesley Clark on June 15, 2003 during a Meet the Press appearance. General Clark stated that on 9-11 he was he was being pressured by the white house to link Saddam and 9-11. This is what he said:
"It came from the White House; it came from people around the White House, it came from all over. I got a call on 9/11 - I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.'"
Unfortunately for General Clark he is not a very skilled
liarpolitical conversationalist, further Tim Russert who was interviewing the General is an excellent interviewer and proceeded to put the General on the spot as he should. Now asking him to be specific about his assertion, Russert wanted the General to name names. He could not name a single person in the administration that asked him to make such a linkage or even name a single person he talked to.Under pressure from Russert, the General reluctantly changed his story to "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam to September 11th." Folks the good General just did a major flip flop on national television. But wait there is more!
Russert smelling the blood in the water hammered at the General again and again. The General now said: "It was a "friend in the administration" but he couldn't name that friend, so he then changed his story once again to say it was "some other sources." OK we went from administration members, to no one from the White House, the back to a "friend in the administration", the to "some other sources"
Wait wait, it gets even better. He then says "No, it was a friend at a Muslim think-tank in Canada." Are these the words of a liar, a deranged person, or something in between? I leave that for you to decide. All I can say is: Oh My God!
Freeman
Edited to add: Sorry DakotaRed I passed your post without realizing you already referenced the interview with the General.
-
36
Saddam not part of Sept. 11th...from George's own mouth...
by Aztec inwashington, sept. 17 president bush said wednesday that there was no evidence that former iraqi president saddam hussein was involved in the sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, disputing an impression that critics say the administration tried to foster to justify the war against iraq.
theres no question that saddam hussein had al-qaida ties, the president said.
but he also said, weve had no evidence that saddam hussein was involved with september the 11th.. the presidents comment was the administrations firmest assertion that there was no proven link between saddam and sept. 11. it came after vice president dick cheney clouded the issue sunday by saying, its not surprising people make that connection.. speaking on nbcs meet the press, cheney also repeated an allegation, doubted by many in the intelligence community, that mohamed atta, the lead sept. 11 attacker, met with a senior iraqi intelligence official in prague in the czech republic five months before sept. 11, 2001.. weve never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of confirming it or discrediting it, cheney said sunday.
-
-
-
24
Do you regret ever getting baptized
by ikhandi inthousand of witnesses do it every year and for what they believe are good reasons.
i did it because i was pressured by elders.
its interesting to note how elders can target young people into committing their life to something they really know nothing about.
-
-
freeman
Do I regret ever getting baptize??? Yes, every waking moment of my life! I was already baptized when I was an infant and I should have left it at that. My bad!
Freeman
-
37
Will the Internet bring down the watchtower Bible and Tract Society
by frankiespeakin inin the united states i keep hearing about how nobody sees the witness is going door-to-door and more, or at least not as often as they used to.
i also heard a report from england recently which stated to the same effect.. what do you think?
do you think the internet is the watchtower society's worst nightmare?.
-
-
freeman
Nobody joins a cult when they know just what it is he or she is joining. Type in Watchtower or Jehovah’s Witnesses into a search engine and you will find all you will ever need to make an informed choice. I do not know if the Internet will ever bring the tower down, however it is safe to say that the Internet Absolutely IS the Towers Worst Nightmare!
Freeman
-
-
-
freeman
I was raised in a very pro Democrat home but I never really got involved in politics myself. The closest I ever come to political involvement is pointing out the glaring flaws in some people’s political arguments (very easy to do since they are often long on rhetoric and short on facts). That aside, I just may get involved this time around as I feel it would be a bad time to put someone in the white house that doesn’t have the defense of this country as his or her number one priority.
Freeman
-
51
Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It)
by Yerusalyim ini'm sure this will not come as a shock to most of you...but clinton was an accomplished liar...problem is...bush is getting the blame for something that clearly started under clinton...and early...the recession.
wonder why this didn't get more press?.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/allpolitics/08/09/column.novak/.
-
-
freeman
Reborn you are completely in error on so many points that I do not know where to begin. I do not have the time or the will to devote to a complete rebuttal, so I will just touch upon one or two points.
No Reborn, 45 minutes is not an imminent threat.
What if it were true that New York could be destroyed with WMDs in lets say six to ten minutes, would that also be an imminent threat in your mind?
The fact is that New York can indeed be wiped out in such a short period.
There are nuclear subs just off the coast of the United States right now carrying WMDs that would make 9/11 pale in comparison. Fortunately those that are tasked with the protection of this nation actually do know what an imminent threat is and have taken the proper response to mitigate the existing threat level, which is in no way imminent, so that it never becomes an imminent threat. “Imminent threat” is in fact your emotionally charged words, not the somber reasoned words of Mr. Bush. Get the point?
As far as the credibility of the source that provided the 45-minute timeline, the papers got some of this wrong as they often do. But one thing that they did get correct is the fact that this intelligence comes from a single source. That is not the best form of Intel. To his credit, the gentlemen that provided this info has provided solid intelligence in the past.
What this individual said more or less is that <something> could be loaded and transported to front line positions in 45 minutes. This gentlemen is also one of several sources that provided information on the mobile labs, another <something> that has now been verified by physical evidence, or do you question that too? My question is why would he lie on this one point when much of the info he provided in the past has already proven to be correct?
I wonder, do you think Mr. Bush and the intelligence community at large ginned-up this entire story for some political gain? And do you seriously believe our military leaders had our soldier’s wear heavy restrictive bio-gear in 100 + degree weather, and be subjected to mandatory inoculations just to push an agenda ginned-up by Mr. Bush? How plausible is that?
In case you have not figured it out yet, let me spell it out for you. Part of the reason our soldier’s were ordered to remain partially clad in bio-gear with the rest of their gear nearby at all times was based on the very report you now question. At the time this Intel was deemed not only credible, but also actionable. I don’t question the report, but I do question your logic here.
On your point about Harken Energy, I think I do perhaps know just a tad more then you might think I know on this subject. I also believe you know substantially less then you should know, especially considering the accusations you make. Lets me show you just how little you really know about this subject. See if you are able to answer these very simple questions. Why did Harken suffer a loss? Specifically what caused it? Did Mr. Bush have any control or involvement over that loss? Did Mr. Bush know they would suffer a loss, was he even in a position to know? When the SEC looked at the disclosure statement that Mr. Bush lawfully made, what was the date that he signed it, did the date he signed the disclosure fall within the time period of the then existing regulations? Do you even know how long a period that is?
I’m not asking you to post your answers here or anywhere else. Just see if you can answer these questions for yourself with the knowledge you already have. If you can answer these questions for yourself, then you are well informed. And if you can’t answer these questions, then my friend IMHO you know substantially less about the subject then is necessary for you to make a proper assessment let alone make public accusations against someone’s character.
Regards,
Freeman
-
51
Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It)
by Yerusalyim ini'm sure this will not come as a shock to most of you...but clinton was an accomplished liar...problem is...bush is getting the blame for something that clearly started under clinton...and early...the recession.
wonder why this didn't get more press?.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/allpolitics/08/09/column.novak/.
-
-
freeman
Reborn,
I find myself troubled by a few comments you made. For example, you said:
Knowingly including lies (i.e. Iraq attempting to acquire uranium from Africa) in his State of the Union Address in order to drum up support for the war in Iraq? After all, the White House website stated he reviews the Address line by line and word by word, and the buck stops with the President right? Oh I know. That can't possibly be his fault for including a lie.
I’m wondering what you may know about this subject that I don’t know from both my public and private sources. Exactly what words are lies? British Intelligence claims to have distinct and separate intelligence apart from the one single report that was questioned, so just what are you talking about?? I find it odd that they to this very day they stand by their stated position. A position, which you claim to be a lie. I am wondering what you know about this matter that both British Intelligence and I don’t seem to know.
Another thing you said that has me troubled is this comment:
Stating that the justification for the war was that the Iraqi regime possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent threat to the United States and it's allies, thereby warranting a "preemptive strike" to prevent a catastrophe.. and 5 months after the war is over and the US military possesses sovereignty over the Iraqi state.. NO weapons of mass destruction are found?
I’m wondering yet again where you get your information. I though I paid pretty close attention to what the president said in the days, weeks, and months, before the war and I don’t ever recall the word ‘imminent threat’ being uttered by him, perhaps I missed that. I do however recall the phrase ‘building or gather threat’ being used, but I just don’t recall him ever saying Iraq was an imminent threat.
As far as not finding WMDs, I have to say no comment on this one. All I will say on the matter is that you are at odds with persons that are cognoscente of what has been found thus far.
Here is yet another thing you said that I found interesting:
George Bush going before the public in 2002 and criticizing the unethical corporate practices of Enron and Worldcom, in which CEO's sold their shares and cashed out with millions a week before the bottom fell out, leaving shareholders and regular workers out to dry when he himself sold his shares in Harken Oil stock 10 years ago and committed the same egregious offense of using insider knowledge for trading purposes. I suppose it was "ethical" and "legal" then eh since he did it?
So let me get this straight, Mr. Bush as a private citizen holds stock in a company, he has a need for cash so he sells his shares to finance a business venture, namely to buy into a baseball team. This lawful action somehow equates Mr. Bush in your mind with people that did illegal things? I buy and sell stock too, so just what am I doing that is illegal? I’m sorry I just don’t get that. Why was it wrong for Mr. Bush to finance the purchase of a baseball team with the sale of some stock? Specifically what law was violated and what was his punishment for this wrongdoing?
Be patient I’m almost done. You also state this:
The Commander-in-Chief you so respect is a deserting soldier. National Guard records and Bush's own supervisor's and friends show no sign of him attending any drills or performing any service for nearly a year, from May 1972 until May 1973. This period began with Bush moving to Alabama for a political campaign. He was AWOL in the Texas Air National Guard!
A deserting soldier faces the consequences of being court marshaled, put in military prison, and then being dishonorably discharged. During a time of war, he can in fact be shot. Well I did a bit of checking and I cannot for the life of me seem to find any info about Mr. Bush’s court marshal. Not a word was found about his incarceration in military prison, or subsequent dishonorable discharge. I’m also fairly confident that he was not shot by a firing-squad since they tend to not miss. So I‘m wondering just how do you draw these conclusions?
And one last final point you make:
Bush was arrested on September 4, 1976 for drunk driving at the age of 30. Do you brush this aside as the mistake of a youth? 30 is a bit old for that excuse. Oh wait.. you wanted integrity.. I suppose a convicted drunk driver fits the bill.
Well I think you nailed him there. Sure enough, he was drinking while driving some years ago and the dope was caught. In fact, his drinking was so bad that he now considers himself an alcoholic. Moreover, he should, because he is and he knows it. He knows that he is the type of guy that can’t just have one or two drinks and call it a night and that’s why he doesn’t drink at all anymore. I won’t comment on his drinking too much more as I have a few alcoholics in my family myself (all on my wifes side ) but perhaps your right, I would not like to see any of my alcoholic family be considered for the office of president, so maybe you have a valid point there.
No hard feelings, but you seem to be unabashedly anti-Bush. Are you? Maybe just a tad, yes?
I just don’t see how logic brings one to support some of these positions you have taken. Maybe your personal feelings for Mr. Bush is clouding your judgment just a bit, is that possible?
Again, I concede that I could be entirely wrong if you are indeed privy to information that everyone else seems to be unaware of but only you would know that for sure.
Freeman
-
62
Apparently Pinatas are ' no big deal'. What's next? Birthdays?
by xjw_b12 ini always thought the society frowned upon the use of pinatas, if not discouraging the use of them all together.
apparently the wts has decided to avoid insulting the brothers in mexico.
from the september 22, 2003 awake.
-
-
freeman
Those ass-holes. How dare they pick and choose where to apply their idiotic dogmas.
That I’m afraid my friend is the very nature of a cult. The application of dogma is at the sole discretion of the leader(s). In this case, the Faithless and Despicable Slave. The FDS has the power to redefine anything and everything at will.
Freeman