Posts by Liberty

11

Middle Ages were warmer than today!

by ThiChi in

jw
friends

another example of why the so called "environmentalists" don't know s**t!

middle ages were warmer than today, say scientists .

by robert matthews, science correspondent .

Liberty

You are soo right ThiChi,

I took several Geology and Paleontology classes which all confirmed from numerous lines of evidence that drastic climate changes throughout the Earth's history are the rule rather than the exception. For instance, the average global temp as late as 65 million years ago was 90 degrees F., way higher than today's averages. Human beings could not possibly be responsible for this "global warming" since we were still at the technology level of today's bush babies munching flowers and insects in the trees at this time. Evidence from many periods prove that we have gone from ice age to hot house over & over again without the help of human industry. The same goes for ozone depleting chemicals which valcanoes spew by the ton without our help. The whole Global Warming/Ozone Hole conspiracy is utter nonsense invented by post modernist Ludites.

22

"Bush fiddles with economy while Baghdad burns"

by Simon in

an interesting article which somewhat reflects my own take on what i see happening.

please note that this does not put any judgement on whether i think it is a good thing or not so please do not "shoot the messenger".. whether you believe or accept the points or not it is an interesting read.

i personally think that the action bush has taken in the last few years has done more harm to the usa than it's enemies ever could which is surely a crime?..

Liberty

The Dixie Chick isn't having her rights violated, she is merely feeling the same sting of consequence that all working folks do when we say things that the people around us find offensive. Even though I might think my boss is an over paid idiot, or that a co-worker is a lazy whore I have learned to curb my tongue and not proclaim these thoughts loudly in a public forum because I am aware of the negative consequences such an airing would bring. My rights to free speach aren't being violated I just don't want the people I work with/for mad at me because life is already hard enough. As an entertainer, Natalie (the Dixie Chick), has the CD/concert ticket buying public as her boss. More importantly, her audience is very different from Marilyn Manson's because the Dixie Chicks' fan base is mostly made up of country folk and conservative family types, not radical young Goth/punk/rocker types so DUH!! she will feel a backlash to her comments from her primary audience/boss. In short, she has every right to say how she feels but NO rights protect her against the consequences of her exercise of freedom. I am free to to dress as a giant fig and jump every third step but I would probably be fired if I did this at work because it is stupid and I would not consider this a violation of my rights. So, telling conservative folks that buy your records that you are ashamed of the President they probably voted for is STUPID, and no rights were violated since she was not arrested and tortured.

You make a good point Frank. Clinton left office with a declining economy and had Gore won we would have seen the same decline as under Bush. 9/11 would have accelerated the decline under Gore as well. In fact I think it would have been worse because we would still be negotiating with the Taliban and Bin Laden's terrorists would still be free to attack us with impunity further damaging economic confidence. Clinton also depleted our military stores to balance his budgets so now we are paying the difference as we rebuild our defenses. By the way, where were all the peace activists and critics when Clinton was bombing and killing in the Balkins in his own war of liberation to get their dictator? This region was much less dangerous to the US than Iraq, yet all the peace nicks looked the other way. Why, simply because he was a Democrat.

29

Michael Moore's actual quote

by Xander in

just thought i'd post this so everyone can see the quote that got him 'booed off the stage' and so horribly offended so many people:whoa.

on behalf of our producers kathleen glynn and michael donovan from canada, i'd like to thank the academy for this.

i have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction.

Liberty

Apparently I was watching the corperate conspiracy version of the Oscars. In the Oscar program I saw, Mr. Moore recieved a standing ovation and cheers for winning his Oscar, however, his speech was met with mostly sitting silence or booing. The left is certainly as guilty as the right when it comes to distorting reality to fit their needs as was illustrated by the distortion of mixing events in time in Moore's case. He did recieve a standing ovation but NOT for the event it was attributed to. I could truthfully claim I made a million dollars on real estate last year by playing Monopoly several times, however it becomes a lie if I leave out the,"by playing Monopoly" part so people are left to think I really made a real million dollars on real properties. Such distortions and half truths are used everyday to make bogus points. That is why we all need to exercise our bull shit detectors and common sense. If the Oscars were edited to make Moore look bad why then did they leave in the standing ovation for his win?

29

Michael Moore's actual quote

by Xander in

just thought i'd post this so everyone can see the quote that got him 'booed off the stage' and so horribly offended so many people:whoa.

on behalf of our producers kathleen glynn and michael donovan from canada, i'd like to thank the academy for this.

i have invited my fellow documentary nominees on the stage with us, and we would like to they're here in solidarity with me because we like nonfiction.

Liberty

My chief beef with Moore is that he isn't a documentary film maker at all, but rather is a comedian/ambush journalist. His claim that he makes non-fiction is laughable. He is always the star of his own "fiction" comedies by acting out characters, mugging for the camera, playing dumb, exaggerating his reaction shots, then heavily editing the footage to only show his own point of view while making his victims/subjects look bad. The fact that he ambushes his victims and takes cheap shots and feined confidences to achieve his mainly comedic goals is just more proof that he has no interest in reality film making or in the truth. He is an expert in prejudicing the audience tword his own political viewpoint. His stuff is very funny, but he creates fiction in order to heighten the laughs and distort reality. There is nothing wrong with this at all, except in the claim that his work is non-fiction. No documentary is 100% "authentic" but Moore isn't even close. His claims are not scientifically verified or researched they are merely knee jerk reactions or opinions off the top of his head. Once again, this is fine, but don't claim it is non-fiction.

Moore loves to stir things up because he is a radical left winger. He loved being booed. He angers people because of his extreme views. Implying that terroism is a "made up" threat by some vast corperate conspiracy is Whacky. Even card carrying commies in Russia believe terrorism is a real threat so he is on the fringes of even the left. Did you see the look on the faces of the Oscar audience during his whacky conspiracy theory tiraid? These folks are as liberal as they come and even they weren't buying it. He has a right to his opinions but he is lying if he says he creates non-fiction. The movie Signs is just as much non-fiction as any of Moore's films or TV programs.

18

Survivor - Amazon

by Mulan in

i forgot to watch survivor last night.

i saw who got voted off, but what else happened?

i was watching american idol, and forgot survivor was on at the same time.

Liberty

Heidi is one strange looking chic. Some of the guys on the show were talking about how hot she was and I was thinking, you've got to be kidding. She talks funny too along with her constant self referencing as "one of the cute girls", and those out of context boobs stretching that sickly thin skin from her rib cage all make me want to gag. I have a running argument with one of the guys at work who thinks Heidi is hot too, I just don't get it. She looks unhealthy to me, not just stressed, dirty, hungry, sleep deprived, and thin but more like she's an alien on death's door. Jenna is way too skinny but she has a pretty face, nice hair, and still looks healthy, though she has an off-putting arrogance I find annoying. The whiner Shawna is cute and also still looked healthy despite her claims of not being able to go on. Christy seems the most approachable and down to earth and doesn't seem to be as affected by the harsh conditions as the younger girls despite her disability. Deena seems oblivious to the conditions around her and looks the same as when she arrived, she seems very cold and matter of fact, maybe just what is needed on a show like this though she is an advertized open threat to the other players. I found the gender divided teams idea to be very interesting and have been fascinated with the women players and their lack of unity which surprized me considering that I didn't think egos would be as much of a factor for the women as the men. Boy, was I wrong.

15

Does Everybody turn our okay after leaving?

by Scooby in

jw
friends

i am curious... do you know some that have left the truth that become "worse" people?

for years i would hear about some who left the truth and rumours how they are on drugs, in jail, etc.

and many bros and sis would say, "you might as well go out in the world and do all the bad stuff..cuz you're dead at armaggedon!".

Liberty

Hi Scooby,

This sounds like another myth from the lie factory known as the Watch Tower Society. I think the majority of JWs leave for reasons other than wanting to become big sinners. Most exJWs got that way because they were interested in the truth and after a few years we found out that the truth was in short supply throughout Watch Tower land. The lack of real agape' love once you are fully initiated into the cult is another big reason for leaving. Perminently leaving the Society for the sole purpose of living an immoral lifestyle would be very rare I'm guessing since most people DFed simply for immorality seek reinstatement.

22

How well do you REALLY know the Organisation?

by gumby in

jw
friends

many times a new one will post a question to what the witnesess teach on a matter or will simply make a statement.

many times you have to wonder where they get their ideas from as regards to what the society teaches on a matter.

many times they are simply wrong, or have the understanding twisted.

Liberty

Much of the aimlessness, confusion, and lack of doctrinal clarity among JWs in the last 15 years or so could probably be explained by the death of Fred Franz. Fred Franz was the man responsible for almost everything JWs have believed since the 1930's. F. Franz was Rutherford's right hand man and continued as the Watch Tower Society's main "scholar/prophet" after Rutherford's death and into the early 1990's when old age and finally death cut off the flow of his powerful influence. Since his death no one left in power has been able to match his creative biblical "mental gymnastics" nor speak with his same authority, an authority/confidence born of F. Franz's conviction that the mantel of Christ's authority over the Organization was passed directly from Russel to Rutherford to F. Franz and Knorr. The witch hunts of the early 1980's wiped out any creative/intelligent Watch Tower staffers who could have filled the void left by F. Franz's death. Ray Franz and other "liberals" on the writing staff such as Ed Dunlap and Lyman Swingle could have made a much smoother transition and kept the Society vibrant after F. Fran's death. I belief that Fred Franz himself was so convinced that Armageddon would arrive before his death that he allowed/encouraged the shake up leaving him as the sole "intellectual" force & unquestioned authority at the center of the Society's power. The Watch Tower Society is now feeling the effects of this purge in its meandering repeats of F. Fran's "old light".

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Liberty

Hooberus,

I fear you are making a real effort to cloud the debate rather than just having trouble understanding our points. We know that tadpoles turning to frogs or embryonic developments are not examples of macro-evolution. These are clear examples however, of evolutionary principles we can see in our everyday lives as oppossed to Creationist principles which have NO illustration what-so-ever in our dailey experiences. You should ask yourself honestly; why would a God who uses direct creation make land animals, toads for example, which start out life as little fishes in water and then change into air breathing land animals?

Whales are another good example of an illogical direct creation. What is the point of creating an air breathing, warm blooded animal which is destined to live out its whole life in the deep ocean when fish have proven to be a far more effecient design for such an environment? It makes far more sense that whales still breathe air and are warm blooded because they evolved from land mammals in an irratic environment rather than that God designed them to be ineffecient in the first place. You are muddying the debate waters with your straw man arguments about the details of micro vs macro evolution. The evidence is clear that creation by invisible spirit beings is the most unlikely possibility for the diversity of life we see on the Earth. You have presented NO evidence at all for such an extraordinary claim, let alone the extraordinary evidence which would be required for reasonable people to believe in such a far fetched and improbable theory. The details of evolution are open to question and our knowledge of all its mechanisms remains incomplete yet it still fits all the evidence we have available far better than direct creation by invisible super beings in the recent past. I could claim that giant pink cotton candy beings created the Universe as a carnival ride but few people would believe me unless this incrediable claim could be proven with some extraordinary evidence. If not for our cultural ties to Christianity your creation by invisible God theories would sound just as silly.

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Liberty

Hooberus,

The fact that you can't see the difference between finding ancient artifacts which are logically atributable to human manufacture and comparing this to finding ancient artifacts which are claimed to be made by invisible spirit entities speaks volumes for your state of mind. If I discover an ancient ceramic art piece but can't document that it was made by a specific potter, Ogg the clay worker whose name was lost to history, I don't automatically assume that it, therefore, must have been made by invisible super beings. Human potters today make very similar objects to ancient ceramic items, some ancient pots even retain human fingerprints, we know ancient cultures used them from the evidence found in other works of art or from the fact that such artifacts litter old dwelling sites so even if we can't prove who specifically made the items we conclude from our evidence and known experience that such ancient items are most likely of human manufacture. A three thousand year old truck found in the future would easily fall into this same category.

The fact that you didn't grasp the meaning of my tadpole to frog example as proof that life forms can and do change from one form to another also illustrates your inability to grasp the most basic modern biological concepts. If we have no evidence for invisible super beings creating the diversity of life on this planet it is perfectly logical to draw a different conclusion from observing changes easily seen in nature such as water breathing gilled,finned, fish-like beings changing into limbed air breathers like frogs or human embryos. If we were a direct creation by God surely He would not go to all the trouble of having us follow such a complex development which looks mysteriously close to a pattern predicted by an evolutionary explaination. We believe evolution to be a more probable explaination for the life forms we see on our planet today rather than direct creation by invisible spirit beings because of the evidence and experiences we bring to the problem. In short, we have NO evidence or experience with creation by invisible beings so we consider this an unlikely means for populating a planet in the same way that since pottery does not normally appear from thin air we do not consider them to be the creations of unseen spirit beings.

172

Evolution or Creation??

by dottie in

well i know i may be opening a can of worms here.... but after what we were taught in the wts about creation...and now that you may know more about evolution... which do you think you'd choose to believe more??.

myself...i am leaning towards evolution...but then i read things that make me think otherwise.

so i do find it confusing sometimes .

Liberty

Poor Hooberus,

Your automobile analogy is greatly flawed. It CAN easily be proven that a vehicle was made in a real physical factory by real physical people so it requires no faith to believe it. My car analogy from an earlier post is far more applicable to God when I stated that claiming Henry Ford's ghost made my car CANNOT be proven and therefore would require faith. We have a world of experience which tells us cars are made by physical makers in the realm of reality but we have little experiential evidence of cars being made by supernatural entities from an invisible realm. To claim that a car was built by a well known automobile company is not an extraordinary claim, while claiming a car was built by ghosts IS a very extraordinary thing, The first claim is easy to believe while the other claim is very hard to believe since there is no experience or evidence of such an extraordinary thing. Evolution is a much more believable method for the creation of the diverse life forms we see in the world today than Bible based Divine Creation. There is a lot of evidence for natural forces working to change life forms and our dailey experiences are full of such evidence. Tadpoles become frogs, fish-like limbless human embryos suspended in liquid change gradually into air breathing limbed land animals, yet no where do we see animals being created by invisible beings out of thin air. There is NO comparison between faith in God and science working out the details of natural evolutionary processes. An invisible, inactive, silent spirit being cannot be studied by any known science, the natural world can be studied, patterns observed, and evidence gathered. Evolution occurs in the natural world, it can be observed and studied here and now and through fossil evidence from the past.