Posts by Reborn2002

82

Yet another example of how silly the Bible is...

by Abaddon in

okay, let's go along with the flood story for a moment, to the point where noah exits the ark.. here we have noah, with two of each animal and seven of the clean animals; maybe a few dozen animals that were not essential to the future survival of the species.. what does god do?.

tells noah he can eat animals now.. are you telling me an all-wise, all-knowing god isn't capable of better planning than that?

which strikes you as more likely?

Reborn2002

I'll be honest... this thread made me laugh.

When a person really takes the time to look at the Bible with unbiased eyes, you see just how illogical and foolish it is.

Let's see, an Almighty God authors the Bible, but does not leave an adequate instruction manual for his creation to interpret it properly, and instead leaves it to the imperfect people he made to fight amongst one another over what is correct? Makes sense. But then again God is love.

The same book should be taken literally in some portions, and figuratively in others? Riiiight. The excuses people make for God and his book never cease to amaze me.

Then again I suppose that matters on which God you believe in. Is it Jehovah? Allah? Buddha? Krishna? Ra? Vishnu?

A moron with a 2nd grade education is more capable of making an instruction manual for a lawnmower that is coherent for others to follow. Yet an omnipotent, omniscient being cannot or willfully does not do so. Go figure.

Let's have a look at Christianity. As obiwan stated, following Christianity's teachings, the whole world is in a pile of shit because a slithering, talking snake told a naked woman in a garden not to eat a piece of fruit from a tree. BILLIONS have died because of this. Now think about the implications of that for a moment. As a parent, if you are cooking in your kitchen, and your child reaches for the hot stove, and you scold them and tell them not to touch it, but they do so anyway and burn their hand, do you subsequently PUNISH and SENTENCE TO IMPERFECTION AND DEATH EVERY GENERATION THEREAFTER? This is the compassion your loving God possesses?

God is allegedly all-powerful yet sits by idly while possessing the ability to intervene in world affairs and instead lets people suffer and die?

If that is the God you worship who allows children to die and innocent people to suffer while sitting by idly.. then I say OBSCENITY DELETED your God.

He is a pretty big hypocrite anyway.

Thou shall not kill + sends an Angel of Death to smite 185,000 in one night + destroys women and children of unbelievers = BLATANT CONTRADICTION

Anyway, it was good for a laugh. I am an atheist, I expect the Bible-thumping fundamentalists to get riled and reply anytime now.

142

What's the most ridiculous thing you were ever counselled on?

by micheal in

jw
friends

one of the cornerstones of jw's is counsel.

they just love to give counsel and many times they will literally make things up just for the sake of counsel.

i was once counselled for joking around too much.

Reborn2002

Wearing sideburns to the bottom of my ear.

Seriously.

I was taken to the backroom by the elders and counseled on this. I was told that such an overgrowth of hair follicles on the side of my face was a showy display of rebelliousness and desire to be different with worldly fashions and trends.

I was told that if I did not trim my sideburns I would be removed from microphone-carrying privileges.

I told them where to go fv<k themselves. (in so many words)

91

Do You Vote and/or Get Involved In Politics Now?

by minimus in

jw
friends

just curious.....

Reborn2002

Yep.

Registered voter in the state of Florida.

Will be voting AGAINST George W. Bush in the 2004 election.

58

AWAKE! asks, are we Slaves of fashion?

by plmkrzy in

.

Reborn2002

Dont think your inserted picture worked plmkrzy.

All I see is "IMAGE HOSTED BY TRIPOD"

24

Eat More Dogs, Cambodians Urged

by closer2fine in

jw
friends

http://news.excite.com/odd/article/id/353584|oddlyenough|09-11-2003::10:27|reuters.html

eat more dogs, cambodians urged

sep 11, 10:23 am et .

Reborn2002

While eating a canine is not my particular cup of tea, those who are so quick to criticize the Vietnamese and Koreans who do so need desperate instruction on cultural/regional values.

For example, in India, the cow is considered a sacred animal. The very notion that Americans have millions of fast-food restaurants where hamburger is served is imponderable.

In other countries, rats and dogs are considered fine delicacies.

Just because a belief system varies from your own, does NOT make it wrong.

Simply inserting my 2 cents on this discussion.

29

i think that 2 x jw getting together must make a good match

by nelly1 in

.

because they both have probrably been thru similar experiences..and can share whatever spirituality is left..i know id prolly prefer an xjw guy to someone in the world :).

any thoughts?

Reborn2002

you heard it here first, folks...hamas is on the market for a hot xjw apostahunk

LMAO

51

Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It)

by Yerusalyim in

i'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/.

Reborn2002

Freeman-

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.

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.

Bush even said it himself.... twice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A17424-2003Jul19?language=printer

White House Didn't Gain CIA Nod for Claim On Iraqi Strikes Gist Was Hussein Could Launch in 45 Minutes
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 20, 2003; Page A01
The White House, in the run-up to war in Iraq, did not seek CIA approval before charging that Saddam Hussein could launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes, administration officials now say.The claim, which has since been discredited, was made twice by President Bush, in a September Rose Garden appearance after meeting with lawmakers and in a Saturday radio address the same week. Bush attributed the claim to the British government, but in a "Global Message" issued Sept. 26 and still on the White House Web site, the White House claimed, without attribution, that Iraq "could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given."
The 45-minute claim is at the center of a scandal in Britain that led to the apparent suicide on Friday of a British weapons scientist who had questioned the government's use of the allegation. The scientist, David Kelly, was being investigated by the British parliament as the suspected source of a BBC report that the 45-minute claim was added to Britain's public "dossier" on Iraq in September at the insistence of an aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair -- and against the wishes of British intelligence, which said the charge was from a single source and was considered unreliable.

45 minutes is not an imminent threat? Get real. Bush even said it himself. Going to drum up an excuse for that with your next post when caught red-handed?

I also like how you pick and choose which flaws of Bush to address. I notice you did not dispute the drunk driving charge, the cowboy attitude with the rest of the world, etc.

Let's have a look at the other things you said.

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?

You are obviously not aware of the facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,752706,00.html

Bush and Harken Energy

As George Bush announces a crackdown on corporate fraud, the president's own financial dealings from 10 years ago have come under renewed scrutiny, as Mark Tran explains

Wednesday July 10, 2002 What is the fuss over Mr Bush's financial transactions?
On June 22 1990, George Bush, then a director with a company called Harken Energy, sold 212,140 shares for $848,000 (£548,100). Almost exactly two months later, on August 20, Harken announced a $23.2m loss, which caused its shares to drop to $2.375 from $3. The next day, Harken returned to $3, but fell to $1 at the end of 1990.
Did Mr Bush do anything wrong?
Although the law requires prompt disclosure of what are called insider sales, or sales by senior executives, Mr Bush did not inform the securities and exchange commission (SEC), the US market regulator, until 34 weeks later. So technically Mr Bush was at fault. Bush supporters say that he did fully disclose the transaction, and that "half of corporate America was filing forms late at that time".
How does Mr Bush explain the episode?
A decade ago, Mr Bush blamed the SEC, which he said had lost the forms he had filed. When the story resurfaced last week, the White House admitted that this had not been the case. Instead, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer blamed the delay on "a mix-up with the attorneys", but could not shed light on how the confusion arose.
Why is this coming to light now?
Someone leaked the SEC report on the incident, presumably to embarrass Mr Bush. He has been thrown on the defensive because of his close business ties at a time when corporate America is in the dock for dodgy accounting and bloated executive salaries.
What did the SEC report say?
The SEC report, dated August 21 1991, said that staff had reviewed thousands of pages of documents, interviewed witnesses and met lawyers for Harken and Mr Bush. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine that Mr Bush had any inside information or advance knowledge of Harken's losses. The SEC recommended that the matter be closed.
Are there other questions about Harken?
Quite apart from Mr Bush's share dealings, the company came under scrutiny for a 1989 deal. In that transaction, Harken sold 80% of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership formed by Harken executives, who got most of the money for the deal by borrowing from Harken itself. The transaction allowed Harken to reduce the amount of debt on its balance sheet and to claim the proceeds of the sale as income.
How did that go down with the SEC?
The SEC thought that the income should have been deferred to future years. After months of discussions with the SEC, Harken in January 1991 restated its financial reports to add $9m to its loss column, nearly quadrupling its loss. It is the kind of financial manoeuvre that would be frowned upon now after the Enron scandal.
How does Mr Bush explain the transaction?
In a press conference this week, an irritated Mr Bush said: "There was an honest difference of opinion as to how to account for a complicated transaction. Sometimes the rules aren't as specific as one would expect, and therefore the accountants and the auditors make a decision."
How did Mr Bush link up with Harken?
Mr Bush became a director of Harken and a member of its audit committee when Harken paid $2m for Spectrum 7, a small loss-making energy company with large debts. Mr Bush was chief executive of Spectrum 7. When asked why Spectrum 7 was of interest to Harken, its founder, according to the US economist Paul Krugman, said: "His name was George Bush." At the time Mr Bush's father was president.
Is there a cloud over the vice-president, Dick Cheney, as well?
There are questions over Mr Cheney when he was chairman and executive of Halliburton, an oil services company, from 1995 to 2000. A Washington-based group, Judicial Watch, is suing Mr Cheney and the company, alleging accounting fraud - a charge the company describes as being without merit. At issue are accounting practices Halliburton adopted in 1998 that included some of its unresolved claims against engineering and construction clients as revenue, even though the amounts of money at stake were still in dispute. Before 1998, the company was more conservative, reporting such revenue only after settling with customers. Halliburton said in May that the SEC was looking into its accounting practices.

http://money.cnn.com/2002/07/11/news/bush_loan/

Bush: Don't do as I did
President's proposals would bar type of loans he got from Harken Energy, reports say. July 11, 2002: 2:57 PM EDT
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - President Bush borrowed money from oil company Harken Energy Corp. while he was a member of its board, a practice he condemned this week as part of his plan to curb corporate abuse and fraud, the White House acknowledged Thursday.
Bush took out low-interest loans totaling $180,375 from Harken in 1986 and 1988 and used the money to buy 105,000 shares of Harken (HEC: unchanged at $0.44, Research, Estimates) stock, part of a Harken program to encourage directors to buy stock, the White House said.
Democrats seized on the revelation, with the Democratic National Committee accusing the administration of "hypocrisy" and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., arguing the loans put the president in a "difficult position to criticize others."
"He did criticize (the) effort in his speech and yet it appears that is what he did himself," Daschle told reporters.
The issue of corporate loans became a hot topic and a focus of Bush's ire after WorldCom Group (WCOME: Research, Estimates), which is under investigation by federal regulators after reporting $3.8 billion in expenses improperly, revealed it loaned former CEO Bernard Ebbers $400 million to buy company stock.
"I challenge compensation committees to put an end to all company loans to corporate officers," Bush said in his Wall Street speech Tuesday on corporate responsibility.
Bush advisers said his loans were legal, appropriate and fully disclosed at the time and that such loans have been common in companies around the country. They dispute any suggestion that Bush is being hypocritical, arguing that the situation has changed.
"It's become clear (the practice) can be abused, as we've seen in some recent cases," Claire Buchan, White House deputy press secretary, told CNN, saying Bush believes the practice "needs to be fixed."
Harken referred questions to the office of its CEO, Michael Faulkner, who did not return calls for comment.
Bush's loans were at 5 percent interest, compared with the 7.5 percent prime lending rate at the time, according to published reports, and Harken didn't require Bush to pay back the principal for eight years.
In a buyback program in 1993, Harken took Bush's 105,000 shares, canceled his debt and gave him options for 42,503 shares. Bush never exercised those options and left the company later in 1993.
Bush's speech this week came amid criticism and questions about other of his practices at Harken, questions that have surfaced periodically during the course of his political career.
First, Democrats have questioned a stock sale Bush made in 1990, when he sold 212,000 shares -- to a mysterious, unnamed buyer who sought him out, according to a New York Times report -- for $848,000.
Bush used the money to pay off the $500,000 loan he took to buy a share of the Texas Rangers, according to the Times -- a move that ended up being the best of his business career, solidifying his fortune and launching his career in politics.
Bush reported that stock sale 34 weeks later than SEC regulations required, and he's been unable to explain why.
He once said the SEC lost his reporting paperwork, then spokesman Ari Fleischer recently said Harken's lawyers lost the paperwork. Finally, in a press conference this week, Bush himself said that he wasn't sure what had happened.
Democrats also have questioned the ethics of a deal that took place in 1989, when Bush was on the company's audit committee and board of directors, in which Harken executives used money borrowed from Harken to buy a Harken subsidiary and artificially boost Harken's cash flow.
The SEC forced Harken to adjust its books after that, but it also found that Bush had done nothing wrong. Since his stock sale took place before Harken adjusted its books, the SEC also investigated him for possible insider trading in 1990, when his father was President, but took no action against him.
In his press conference this week, Bush called the Harken charges old news and said the SEC needed to be strengthened to separate normal business dealings like his from the malfeasance happening at other companies.
"In the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white when it comes to accounting procedures," he said.
Bush joined Harken in 1986 after it bought his failing energy business, Spectrum 7. Harken gave him the 212,000 shares of stock as a result of that deal, and he became a director and a consultant for the company.
Senator Daschle again challenged Bush to ask the SEC to make records on the insider trading investigation public.
"The way to resolve it is simply for the SEC to release the file so that there isn't any more outstanding question, that there isn't any doubt about what happened and why," Daschle said.

His actions were deemed legal at the time. I wonder how much of that had to do with his Daddy being President? That aside, it is indisputable fact now that the practices he committed then are the very same ones he condemns now as unethical. Do as I say, no as I do.

Comprende?

Safe to say that is to suffice for now. When you learn your facts, perhaps your rebuttal would be legitimate. Until then it is blind, unwavering support for a corrupt politician.

"You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or who says it." - Malcolm X, 1963

51

Clinton Lied (What Did He Know and When Did He Know It)

by Yerusalyim in

i'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/.

Reborn2002

Yeru-

As usual, your so biased and full of shit it isn't even funny.

Dubya has "restored honor and integrity" to the White House?

PUHLLLLEEASEE!

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.

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? Especially convenient given Dubya's whipping boy Colin Powell goes before the UN with exceptional intelligence including satellite imagery showing how weapons are being moved from one day to the next.. and now the same intelligence is capable of finding nothing.

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?

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.

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!

http://www.awolbush.com

Demonstrating his cavalier cowboy attitude by simply thumbing his nose at the rest of the world and walking out on the Kyoto treaty. Further exemplifying this by encouraging aggressive deforestation and lightening EPA standards.

Utilizing his personal belief in Jeezus Khrist to guide him in passing legislation to limit stem-cell research, and to sanction so-called faith based initiatives in government.

Repealing ergonomics standards for thousands of American workers.

Has led the fight to eliminate overtime pay.

Pushed through two huge tax breaks for the rich with the promise it would stimulate the economy. (I even recall you getting a $900 check months ago and babbling how the economy would be better.. is it months later? NO)

Honesty and integrity. Your a funny man Yeru.

36

How Extreme Will Witnesses Become?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i think this is a question worth considering - just how extreme will witnesses become?.

first, the hierarchy: there are numerous accounts stretching back for years of gb members skipping meetings,.

ignoring field service and treating "vital" doctrine in a cavalier fashion.

Reborn2002

LOL @ Elsewhere!

On a more serious note however, his post and others like it have merit.

As others have already pointed out, it would only take a minor shift in doctrine for the Witnesses as a whole to advocate views even more extreme than those they already possess.

I mean really, the Jehovah's Witnesses already believe that all non-believers, unless they convert to Watchtower's version of Christianity, will be destroyed by their loving God. All it would take is one magazine article with a blessing of "New Light" instructing them that they have been chosen to participate in God's work of removing the evil worldly people and apostates, and you have another case of extremist Islamic jihad on your hands with murdererous zealots killing those who choose to not believe the same religious viewpoint.

A truly frightening prospect isn't it? They already needlessly kill innocent people by continuing to adhere to an ever-changing blood doctrine. They already willingly protect child molestors if it means safeguarding the image of the book-publishing corporation. What is a little extra blood on their hands to eradicate vocal opposers?

36

How Extreme Will Witnesses Become?

by metatron in

jw
friends

i think this is a question worth considering - just how extreme will witnesses become?.

first, the hierarchy: there are numerous accounts stretching back for years of gb members skipping meetings,.

ignoring field service and treating "vital" doctrine in a cavalier fashion.

Reborn2002

My dear wife has already admitted to me that she expects; and I mean she FULLY EXPECTS, that jehover [read, the WTS] will ask his servants to do something that will seem completely wrong and contradictory to what we would be expected to do as a final test of his servants. It won't make sense at all. It will seem as far fetched, as she says, "as jehovah asking Abraham to sacrifice his only son."
Friends, [sorry 'bout that word, I cringed too when I typed it] anything and everything is fair game for the die-hard faithful in JW land.

I have heard this rationale too in the times I have encountered Jehovah's Witnesses in recent years.

About a year ago when I talked to my brother he made statements to the same effect that the WTS and Jehovah may require sacrifices that mere humans cannot understand. It would be a test of faith, and only true and loyal JW's would pull through.

To steal an infamous line from the user who goes by the name of cruzanheart on this website.

Kool-Aid anyone? To one day hear on the news that the JW's (or at least a fringe group of them) committed mass suicide would not be a surprise to me.

They are an extremist cult, and I HATE them.