our "spy" was able to get in and get out undetected.
we thank him/her for their kindness and courage.
remarks were made that the assembly this person attended only kept the women in their place.. i remarked to this person that one of these days the watchtower is going to "put down" the wrong woman who is going to clean their clock with a massive discrimination lawsuit!.
I'm about to go to work, I hope some one can answer this question, because I really want to look into some accounting issues with these reports.
Here's the question: After the circuit sends excess funds to the branch office to be held on its account there, what does it have to do to get the money back?
watchtower and trading business is a never ending combination, now under the new name of hudson valley, selling their building machines online: .
http://used-tools-equipment.com.
excuse my ignorance, but when you factor the cost and logistics of housing and feeding 3000 volunteers, along with the purchase of 10's of millions of dollars of equipment, for those who would know how is this more cost effective then having the general contractor do all the work?
It isn't. And that would be before you factor in all the added expense caused by incompetent project management. The biggest thing the general contractor brings to the work site is the knowledge of how to do the job. A bad GC can cost you a fortune. Example: on one of the projects I worked on (an apartment building) the floors were installed before the plumbing, which means the plumber had to rip out the floors to install the plumbing. The floors then needed to be replaced. In our case the GC ate the cost (and probably watched his profit disappear).
I have no doubt (and there have been some reports) that this kind of thing happened a lot a Warwick.
watchtower and trading business is a never ending combination, now under the new name of hudson valley, selling their building machines online: .
http://used-tools-equipment.com.
As I understand it, they were acting as their own general contractor on the Warwick project. (This, in my opinion as a former real estate developer is a bad idea but they didn't ask me). So they need a lot of tools and equipment for a long time. Renting the stuff you need for a project that size doesn't make sense, you need to much of it for too long a time. So they bought it, they shouldn't have trouble reselling it to recover some cost.
I'm trying to work out in my head if they could keep some of it and rent it out to congregations building new halls. It might make sense, but they'd have to truck it all over the country, building the cost of that into the rental rate may make it so expensive that even Elder Dumbjon could figure out he was paying too much.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Article I section 8 (powers of Congress)
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Under this authority the Militia Act of 1903 created the Reserve Militia which consists of all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45; and the Organized Militia, which are all the state militias. Per RCW 38.04.030 I'm a member of the Washington State Militia even though I'm about to turn 65, Our unorganized militia has no upper age limit (and no reference to gender :) )
Edited to add: the English laws are relevant because most of the legal systems and laws set up in the colonial states were based on English law, since that's what we'd been living under.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Who exactly should determine what it should be now *now*? Isn't that the supreme court?
No.
I think Berengaria posted a very interesting and comprehensive history to it.
Interesting yes, comprehensive no. It discusses one aspect of the militia history in the United States, but ignores (among other things) the history of the militia in English Common Law, which was very familiar to the framers of the Constitution.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
The problem is, they are not around to ask so all you get are interpretations.
Not really true. They left very extensive notes on what they meant by what they wrote. If you want to debate the US constitution read "The Federalist Papers." For that matter you should also read "The Anti-Federalist Papers." Its harder to find but sheds some light on what the losing side thought.
Edited to add. The National Guard was founded in 1903.
Berengaria, that's true, but I will note that at least some gun control efforts started as attempts to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans.
http://www.old-yankee.com/rkba/racial_laws.html
http://monderno.com/monderno/if-youre-anti-gun-youre-a-racist/
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Simon,
If you want an honest debate about this you should do some research on what the framers of the Constitution meant by "militia." Its at least as relevant as what they meant by "firearms."
And to answer your question, we have accepted some reasonable limitations on the right to bear arms for quite some time. Military grade weapons, such as fully automatic rifles and machine guns are highly regulated, and I've never seen a weapon that fires explosive shells for sale to private citizens.
There may be some nuts around advocating a right to own tanks or whatever, few serious people take such a position. Asserting an argument from an absurd position is what's inane.
one thing i like to do to test a theory is to take things to extremes or to their logical conclusion to see if the premises still hold.
very often, a claim that seems to make sense at a superficial level falls apart when you start to stretch it a little.. so let's play a game.. suppose the 2nd amendment is valid, that some "well regulated militia" really is necessary to hold the government to account.. obviously when this was drafted the government had access to the weapons of it's day which would be muskets!
so muskets all round.
Now, tell me again how you need your guns and the lame reasons you think justify them.
Why should I bother? You've made it clear you don't want to hear a different opinion.
i think its vitally important to realized that the wts now has as of this year probably close to 2 billion in overall assets worldwide that it can live off for a very long time.
i get this gut feeling that the wts heads are positioning themselves and the organization in tentative survival mode for the long run.. so many cut backs, the selling off of many branches, the down sizing of much of its operations, are all tell tale hints that even the heads of this organization are preparing for the eventful devolving of this organization.
the wts gb leaders say that jah's chariot is moving along at a faster pace but in reflection of how this organization been conducting itself as of late, that wouldn't necessarily be the real truth of the matter.
I think the money is probably already in the safest country they can find. The US government is VERY reluctant to tread on the 1st amendment protection of churches. Unless they are doing something like outright criminal (think the Mormon renegades marrying thirteen year old girls) they aren't going to pursue a religion. That isn't true in a lot of other places.
