Like sands through the hourglass...
so are the Days of our Lives.
Reborn2002
JoinedPosts by Reborn2002
-
60
WARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FYI
by Jesika injust so you all know...............primitivegenious.............is a liar!!!!!!!!!
he partied with me and lyineyes....wildturkey.....moreisbetter....pr_capone........searcher and i.
he is still a jw..........and is lurking here.............he is not who he says he is.
-
-
-
18
Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...
by Michael3000 infrom the san francisco chronicle's mark morford:.
= mark's notes & errata ==.
where opinion meets benign syntax abuse .
-
-
Reborn2002
bttt
-
23
A picture is really worth a thousand words
by observador inmany people here have described how interesting this summer's conventions were.
well, i got this picture - which requires no explanation - from a faithful to the letter jdub but apparently with a good sense of humor.
now, if this picture made its way to an watchtower magazine, what would the caption be?
-
-
Reborn2002
I am with rekless here. Where are the JW youth from ages 16-25? If this picture is any evidence.. then that demographic is almost nonexistent.
The last few times I snug into a Kingdumb Hall just to see what was going on, unless it was a case of children who were too young to decide for themselves and forced to live at home with loyal Dub parents, the youth contingent that is supposed to replace the older generation (oh wait that's right, the older generation wasn't supposed to die anyway) is not there.
-
-
-
Reborn2002
I am inclined to agree with DanTheMan here.
Roses on the ankles or other parts of the body are very common.
Do you intend to go along with the crowd and be like everyone else? Peer pressure can be a bitch.
Furthermore, I strongly urge you to consider what you are doing. Tattoos are permanent. Do you want this image with you for the rest of your life? While laser surgery for tattoo removal is available, it is extremely expensive. I suggest you be 100% certain before going under the ink gun.
However, if it makes you happy, then who am I or anyone else to argue?
Good luck in your endeavor, whichever outcome it may be.
-
18
Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...
by Michael3000 infrom the san francisco chronicle's mark morford:.
= mark's notes & errata ==.
where opinion meets benign syntax abuse .
-
-
Reborn2002
Yeru, either your an idiot or you are willfully ignorant. Given the fact I have known you from this discussion board for quite some time, I will believe it is the latter.
I say:
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies.
To which you respond:
Thanks for proving my point...that is an anti Bush statement, not a statement of an issue.
Are you kidding? You are making yourself out here to be comical. Clinton is impeached by the House of Representatives and brought to trial over issues of deceit concerning extramarital affairs with an intern. Did you even read my above post? Surely you did, but you conveniently avoid that which does not support your perspective. Just so you can understand I will reiterate it. This is hardly just an "Anti-Bush" statement as you would like to call it, but a very relevant issue.
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies. British Intelligence (which the US agreed with and did not refute) states he is capable of launching these weapons within 45 minutes notice. British Intelligence also presents as fact that he attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, and George Bush uses this allegation in his State of the Union Address and presents it as factual evidence to incite support for his cause in waging a war. Yet, 4 months of occupation and possessing sovereignty of the air and land, NO WMD have been found. It later emerges that statements Bush uses regarding Iraq acquiring uranium were lies. You say he did not lie? Then why are White House National Security Advisor Rice and the CIA Director George Tenet apologizing for these statements? The President gave the speech. The buck allegedly stops there. Yet it is everyone else's fault. Even more humorous when you read the caption of a Bush picture on the White House website that states he personally reviews his speech and analyzes every line word for word. Furthermore, Tony Blair and George Bush go before Congress and in convenient revisionistic fashion state that "history will forgive even if WMD are not found" yet this was the sole justification for war in the first place.
Inserting false statements and presenting them as fact to gain support for the war? An impeachable offense if we hold it to the same standard for which William Jefferson Clinton was held.
Comprehend now? Probably not.
The Dems haven't said how they would have better dealt with the situation.
I am not a Democrat. Unlike some here, I do not vote based strictly on partisan political lines. I consider myself an Independent Moderate who analyzes the platform of each available candidate and then votes accordingly. So making reference to Democrats in response to me is not only inappropriate, but further demonsrates your extreme right-wing unwavering loyalty even in the face of evidence.
The statement is also a lie. The war was NOT waged under false pretenses, and the Bush admin didn't call Saddam an IMMINENT threat, but rather, a growing threat.
Surely your joking again.
The British Intelligence report which the United States did not refute but instead used to garner support for the war stated Saddam Hussein had launch capability within 45 minutes. Claims by Bush and Blair used to gain support, and to date are unfounded, even to the point that Jack Straw and Colin Powell backed off.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,967548,00.html
Jack Straw and his US counterpart, Colin Powell, privately expressed serious doubts about the quality of intelligence on Iraq's banned weapons programme at the very time they were publicly trumpeting it to get UN support for a war on Iraq, the Guardian has learned.
Their deep concerns about the intelligence - and about claims being made by their political bosses, Tony Blair and George Bush - emerged at a private meeting between the two men shortly before a crucial UN security council session on February 5.
The meeting took place at the Waldorf hotel in New York, where they discussed the growing diplomatic crisis. The exchange about the validity of their respective governments' intelligence reports on Iraq lasted less than 10 minutes, according to a diplomatic source who has read a transcript of the conversation.
The foreign secretary reportedly expressed concern that claims being made by Mr Blair and President Bush could not be proved. The problem, explained Mr Straw, was the lack of corroborative evidence to back up the claims.
Much of the intelligence were assumptions and assessments not supported by hard facts or other sources.
Mr Powell shared the concern about intelligence assessments, especially those being presented by the Pentagon's office of special plans set up by the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz.
Mr Powell said he had all but "moved in" with US intelligence to prepare his briefings for the UN security council, according to the transcripts.
But he told Mr Straw he had come away from the meetings "apprehensive" about what he called, at best, circumstantial evidence highly tilted in favour of assessments drawn from them, rather than any actual raw intelligence.
Mr Powell told the foreign secretary he hoped the facts, when they came out, would not "explode in their faces".
What are called the "Waldorf transcripts" are being circulated in Nato diplomatic circles. It is not being revealed how the transcripts came to be made; however, they appear to have been leaked by diplomats who supported the war against Iraq even when the evidence about Saddam Hussein's programme of weapons of mass destruction was fuzzy, and who now believe they were lied to.
People circulating the transcripts call themselves "allied sources supportive of US war aims in Iraq at the time".
The transcripts will fuel the controversy in Britain and the US over claims that London and Washington distorted and exaggerated the intelligence assessments about Saddam's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programme.
An unnamed intelligence official told the BBC on Thursday that a key claim in the dossier on Iraq's weapons released by the British government last September - that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack within 45 minutes of an order - was inserted on the instructions of officials in 10 Downing Street.
Adam Ingram, the armed forces minister, admitted the claim was made by "a single source; it wasn't corroborated".
Speaking yesterday in Warsaw, the Polish capital, Mr Blair said the evidence of weapons of mass destruction in the dossier was "evidence the truth of which I have absolutely no doubt about at all".
He said he had consulted the heads of the security and intelligence services before emphatically denying that Downing Street had leaned on them to strengthen their assessment of the WMD threat in Iraq. He insisted he had "absolutely no doubt" that proof of banned weapons would eventually be found in Iraq. Whitehall sources make it clear they do not share the prime minister's optimism.
The Waldorf transcripts are all the more damaging given Mr Powell's dramatic 75-minute speech to the UN security council on February 5, when he presented declassified satellite images, and communications intercepts of what were purported to be conversations between Iraqi commanders, and held up a vial that, he said, could contain anthrax.
45 minutes notice is not an imminent threat? Get real.
You further rant:
Again, the Dems have no issues other than being antiBush...thanks for proving my point.
I see you conveniently avoided everything I said regarding your sarcastic comment about Carol Moseley Braun. I also notice you conveniently ignored every statement I made regarding the economy, Bush's faith-based initiatives, his disrespect for the environment, and the double-standard made available to him when it comes to his military service and criminal record. I suppose these are all Anti-Bush statements, and not relevant issues.
People are usually silent when they have nothing useful to say. All that ever comes out of your mouth in a political discussion is right-wing rhetoric.
I see you for what you are. Everyone else reading this sees you for what you are, so I suggest you stop now while you still only have 1 carton of egg on your face, and not two.
-
48
Would you?
by donkey inscenario 1: if you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars?.
scenario 2: if you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars from the wtbs?.
scenario 3: if you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars from a bank?.
-
-
Reborn2002
Scenario 1: If you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars?
Yes. I could use the money.
Scenario 2: If you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars from the WTBS?
Yes. I could use the money and taking anything away from them would be a justifiable comeuppance in my opinion.
Scenario 3: If you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars from a bank?
Yes. After all, I reason that they are FDIC insured and no account holder will lose funds.
Scenario 4: If you could guarantee that you would not get caught would you steal a million dollars from a charity that helps starving people?
No.
Jack, are you playing with moral absolutes again?
-
40
C.T. Russell's grave vandalized
by RR ini attended a week long [six day] bible student convention in johnstown, pa, just outside of pittsburgh, there was a sister from romania who wanted to visit pastor russell's grave, so we drove the 2 hours up there, the last time i was there was in 1999.
well, apparently russell'sgrave was vandalized, on the front and back of the tombstone there are these photos of russell embedded into the granite, someone decided to keep a momento and ripped them off, so there's just a hole where the pictures were.
no respect for the dead, oh well.
-
-
Reborn2002
Read his writings Donk, you'd be surprised what you'd learn.
LOL. Yeah, despite the fact that the organization that went by the name of Jehovah's Witnesses was not founded until after his death, his principal teachings instructed those who would later branch off and become the Watchtower Society.
What would you learn? That he was another grade A nutjob who arrogantly felt he was sent by the Lord to be the Laodicean Messenger and the Faithful and Discreet Slave? Or how about being convinced that the Pyramids in Egypt held hidden meaning within the Bible? Hell, a tombstone of a pyramid is at the gravesite unless it has been vandalized also.
"The Watch Tower" (12/1/1916) P. 5998"Pastor Russell held closely to the Scriptures. He believed that Christ had been present since 1874. He also admitted in private to being that "Faithful and Wise Servant".
"The Watch Tower" (12/15/1916) P. 6024"To disregard the message received through Pastor Russell would mean disregard for the Lord.""Studies", Vol 4, p.613"The 'Faithful and wise servant' is one man."
"Studies", Vol 7, p.3"...Charles Taze Russell was the messenger of the Church of Laodicea."
"Studies", Vol 7, p.5"...the messenger of the Laodicean Church - "that wise and faithful servant" of the Lord - Charles Taze Russell."
"Studies", Vol 7, p.487"the Lords faithful and wise steward, Pastor Russell."
"The Watch Tower" (3/1/1917) P. 6049"The Watch Tower unhesitatingly proclaims brother Russell as "that faithful and wise servant"
"The Watch Tower" (11/1/1917) P. 6159"The Scriptures indicate that Russell was chosen of the Lord from his birth. The two most popular messengers were Paul and Pastor Russell. Russell is the "servant" of Matthew 24:45-47.""The Watch Tower" (3/1/1922) P. 74"Fulfilled prophecy - or physical facts - and the circumstantial evidence are conclusive proof that Russell filled the office of that "Faithful and Wise Servant."for further information visit:
-
18
Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...
by Michael3000 infrom the san francisco chronicle's mark morford:.
= mark's notes & errata ==.
where opinion meets benign syntax abuse .
-
-
Reborn2002
I'm hoping then, that Carol Mosley Braun is Bush's opponent. You'd vote for her?
(Yawn)
The likelihood that Carol Moseley Braun gets past the first round of primaries is nil and zero. Your attempt to be sarcastic is futile because your comments are a joke.
Why? Because in this country that is touted for being Land of the Free and Home of the Brave / Equality for Everyone, the reality is that only white males have legitimate chances to win a Presidency. Oh wait, that's right. In 225 years since the country's inception and 43 Presidents later, the ONLY race and gender to serve in this office is the caucasian male. Yet you say Carol Moseley Braun? Surely you jest. A woman? A black woman at that? Not in this white man's world.
Then you blabber:
This is just proof that the Dems have no issues other than "Anti_Bush"
Surely your joking yet again. No issues other than Anti-Bush. HA.
Bush wages a war under false pretenses by saying that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that are an imminent threat to the security of the United States and it's allies. British Intelligence (which the US agreed with and did not refute) states he is capable of launching these weapons within 45 minutes notice. British Intelligence also presents as fact that he attempted to acquire uranium from Africa, and George Bush uses this allegation in his State of the Union Address and presents it as factual evidence to incite support for his cause in waging a war. Yet, 4 months of occupation and possessing sovereignty of the air and land, NO WMD have been found. It later emerges that statements Bush uses regarding Iraq acquiring uranium were lies. You say he did not lie? Then why are White House National Security Advisor Rice and the CIA Director George Tenet apologizing for these statements? The President gave the speech. The buck allegedly stops there. Yet it is everyone else's fault. Even more humorous when you read the caption of a Bush picture on the White House website that states he personally reviews his speech and analyzes every line word for word. Furthermore, Tony Blair and George Bush go before Congress and in convenient revisionistic fashion state that "history will forgive even if WMD are not found" yet this was the sole justification for war in the first place. United States soldiers are killed in combat and the Bush Administration cries foul to the high heavens when images of these men are displayed publicly on television. Yet, in typical hypocritical fashion, when 2 prominent leaders of the Iraqi regime, Odai and Qusai Hussein, are killed, they have no problem spamming pictures of their rotting, bullet-riddled corpses for the entire world to see. Double-standard? You betcha. Let us not kid. Dick Cheney and oil contracts for Iraq, and the simple reason that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate George W Bush's father are the true reasons this war took place. If it was to fight for the freedom of Iraq, then the US government should be pounding down doors in Iran, North Korea, Yemen, etc. Is that happening? No. You can spew propaganda and convince yourself otherwise.
The economy is in shambles and the unemployment rate is the highest it has been in over a decade. Right-wing extremists would have you believe this is the legacy of William Jefferson Clinton. To be more than generous, I will state that perhaps it is to an extent. After all, the economy was already spiraling downward at the time Bush was inaugurated. He inherited a downturn. Nevertheless, Bush has had control of all 3 branches of government in his tenure since the Republicans control the Executive Branch, and both the House and Senate are held by a Republican majority, AND the Supreme Court which voted Bush into office is composed of 7 Justices who were appointed by Republican Administrations. How long can you blame the economy on Clinton? 3 years? 4 years? Hell why not blame Clinton for the economy for the period of Bush's entire term? It is high time that Bush take some responsibility. Make excuses all you want. The reality that tax breaks for the wealthy and campaign contributors while the working class loses jobs is enough.
Or how about the clear and concise speech in the Constitution regarding seperation of Church and State? Yet Bush seems content to implement so-called Faith Based Initiatives. He also seems content to make decisions regarding stem-cell research and other medical/technological advancements based solely on his personal belief in Jeezus Khrist.
Or how about we discuss issues like the Kyoto Treaty? Bush runs to allies and other nations when he wants something done. Yet when it is something he disagrees with he brashly walks away from the table. The problem is he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple, and since he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth he whines if he does not get his way.
By the way, has he ever accounted for the 2 years he was AWOL while serving in the Texas Air National Guard?
Or how about his quick action to repeal ergonomics standards? Working class workers like my father now have to submit to the will of the corporation while slaving on assembly lines even if it means injury to their hands and feet.
Or how about the fact that people are prohibited from running for political office if they have a felony conviction, yet he was arrested for drunk-driving at the age of 30 and this is ignored. Like OJ Simpson, it does not matter if you are guilty. What matters is how much money you have, and who you know.
Do I have issues with George Bush other than Anti-Bush? I have plenty. I suggest you learn the facts next time before you open your mouth and promptly insert your foot. Then again, you are a soldier in the armed forces. It is your job just to keep quiet and do as your told and to blindly defend your Commander-In-Chief. This is to be expected. Even if it means fudging a post in another thread claiming a letter came to you personally from a close friend who was in Iraq and saw events firsthand, when the exact same letter shows up verbatim on a website attributed to someone else...
-
18
Hopefully, this means Bush won't get re-"elected"...
by Michael3000 infrom the san francisco chronicle's mark morford:.
= mark's notes & errata ==.
where opinion meets benign syntax abuse .
-
-
Reborn2002
I live in Florida and will be voting for whoever is running against Bush.
-
10
I received this in a Email today..A must read
by Parliament inhow to stay safe in the world today:.
1. avoid riding in automobiles because they are responsible for 20% of all .
fatal accidents.. 2. do not stay home because 17% of all accidents occur in the home.. 3. avoid walking on streets or sidewalks because 14% of all accidents occur .
-
-
Reborn2002
I would respond to their letter.
I would tell them:
I cannot walk to the Kingdom Hall, because as your email suggests, it is too dangerous. I cannot ride a bike, because that would involve me riding on sidewalks as a pedestrian and it is too dangerous according to your data. I also cannot drive or ride in someone's automobile either, because as your email brings out, it is too dangerous too. Looks like I have no way to get there safely. Besides, even if I did, (insert copy of Dateline program or BBC Panorama) how many pedophiles are lurking within these walls waiting to prey on children? Whoops. Looks like it isn't safe inside the Kimgdumb Hall after all. Remove me from your email list. I do not have time for such garbage.
