Posts by Seeker

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

My side? Sorry, but I am neither consevative nor liberal, although I do lean more towards the conservative. Yes, "we" taxpayers did pay for lots of hearings, but the liberal press only did a cursory investigation themselves. Yet, now that a conservative is on the white house, they seem ready to spare no expense at trying to find dirt, even to create it, if necessary.

That paragraph speaks for itself. You are condemned out of your own mouth by repeating conservative propaganda. Even using the canard "liberal press" tells me you haven't seen through the lies.

Am I tolerant and unbiased in this area? No way! I condemn all of 'em. If I'm picking on conservatives at the moment, it's because they are in power, as I already told you.

Now, when you stop parroting false statements that have been fed you by conservative sources, you will come to see that both sides are playing dirty and we are all caught in the middle.

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

sunscapes,

No apology necessary, but your kindness is saying so is noted with appreciation.

Politics is dirty business, all right.

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

Sorry, but cursory mention is not exactly what I call intense digging.

Are you kidding? We taxpayers paid for years of hearings into Clinton's past by conservatives trying to dig up anything they could find on the guy.

Did you forget all the mentions of "trailer park trash" of Paula Jones? Did you forget all the denials and refusals to speak of draft dodging? Where was I, you ask? May I ask where were you?

'Where were you'? What are you talking about? I was referring to two sentences you wrote in this thread where you talk about how digging up dirt is a liberal practice. In fact, both sides do it, including your side. You tried to make it a partisan sin. It is a bipartisan sin.

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

I wonder what they would have discovered and reported if they delved into the history of Clinton's draft dodging and sexual misgivings with all sorts of women? It amazes me that it is only conservatives that merit the drudging up of anything and everything they can muster to attempt to discredit them.

What remarkably prejudiced sentences! Where were you in the 90s? Did you miss the years of intense digging by conservatives into the dealings of Clinton? Does Whitewater ring a bell? Lewinsky?

How can you possibly think this is a liberal-only practice? Remember Richard Nixon's Enemy List, and the dirty tricks they did?

I cannot believe you said what you did. Politics is dirty on all sides. Investigations occur on all sides. Lies are told on all sides.

And Bush is being picked on now because he is the one in power at the moment. When the next guy takes over in 2005, I'll start pointing out his lies and propaganda. I'll keep doing this until people wake up to the way they are being taken in by partisan propaganda. Those two sentences above are evidence to me that you have been taken in by conservative propaganda.

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

rekless,

I agree. I'm just trying to raise some consciousness here. Many ex-JWs have forgotten the lessons they learned when they left the WTS after discovering the corruption within it. Some of them seem to think the government is telling the truth, that when George W. Bush pledged to restore honor to the White House that it was more than just another campaign lie.

So I like to occasionally remind these folks that, Republican or Democrat, power corrupts politics just as it corrupts religious organizations.

Propaganda is not just something that happens in other countries. Or the Watchtower.

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

Hi Seeker: Thanks for posting this article. The NY Times is known for its liberal bias ... so I tend to want other sources before I accept NY Times reporting.

No, the NY Times is now known for its bias toward conservative corporations. However, this was not "reporting" but an Op Ed piece, and thus opinion, and Frank Rich is well known for his liberal bias, so this could account for your mistake.

quote:
"But there is still scant evidence to suggest that he condones the idea of a free press."
The evidence for this is weak.

How about when his administration scolded the press into falling in line shortly after 9/11? Free press? Hardly.

quote:
" ... or into possible White House favors for a lavish campaign contributor who has fallen into legal peril (Ken Lay now, Robert Vesco then)."
Bush refused to help out or give favors to Enron when they pleaded ... certainly, if he were so influenced and giving favors, he would have acted to save his buds.

He couldn't give favors by then because the spotlight was too bright. The favors had already been given, however, when Enron got to help write administration energy policies the year before.

The NY Times loves inuendo. They fail to mention that Clinton and Rubins hosted Enron officials at the Whitehouse, and traveled all over the globe to influence nations to work with Enron ... and Enron gave Clinton and the Democrats big bucks.

I guess you missed those articles. I knew about it.

So, any so-called extra 'influence' claimed by the times that is so un usual only needs to go back to Clinton to see even more influence peddeling of Enron ... and a cozy relationship. Thier claims that this has not been seen since Nixon is a willful and deliberate lie ... to link Bush with Nixon for liberal causes.

No, the point of the Op Ed piece is the way the president views the press, and Bush resembles Nixon in that respect, so the link is clear and direct. Clinton wasn't at all this way with the press. His corruption lay elsewhere.

If Bush is wrong, let him be wrong on his own merits, and not by inuendo and linkage ...

The linkage is direct and based on facts.

This wat is no secret ... and in war the situation is not normal. These modern journalists are pussies ... they have never understood war ... and this is nothing unusual for soldiers to detain anyone, at anytime, for any reason ... war ... that is what it is about ... and what are the so-called """secrets""" being hidden? First the journalist does not say ... it is inuendo

He did say, didn't you read this article? The secrets were that American forces may have killed innocents by accident, and he wanted to investigate.

... and second, if they really wanted to hide anything, they would have killed the journalist, buried his body in an Al Quaeda cave, and claimed that the bad guys did it.

Indeed, that would have been even worse than putting a gun to his head and ordering him not to investigate any further. However, even the lesser offense is a gross one.

quote:
" ... , to keep reporters from finding out what's going on."
Yep ... it is not so much tht there is any real 'dirt' to hide, but reporters get people killed if allowed to run loose

How thoughtful of the Army to "protect" this reporter by putting a gun to his head and threatening him. Orwellian.

There may well have been dirt to hide, but now we won't know if the Army screwed up because they threatened the free press to keep them from finding out what happened.

... the big example was how the military trusted the US Press in Somalia, and as a result, the bad guys were waiting for the arrival of US military, and killed them ... so the Press does not always need to know, and this problem was seen in WWII ... such that the phrase was coined,"Loose Lips Sinks Ships"

If the Army is killing innocents by accident, the press does need to know as they serve as the eyes and ears of the American public. Or do you just want to hear the lies told by the Joint Chiefs as they stand before their boards and give press conferences? After Desert Storm, years later, journalists interviewing now retired military leaders discovered that the American people were directly lied to on a number of occasions by the Colin Powell show of the day for the press conferences about Desert Storm. Count on being lied to now about the current conflict. Unless you have an independent and free press, how will you know what is really happening?

By putting a gun to their heads?

39

Bush administration and the press

by Seeker in

jw
friends

op-ed piece in the times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02rich.html.

an excerpt:.

"the president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers.

Seeker

Op-Ed piece in the Times: http://partners.nytimes.com/2002/03/02/opinion/02RICH.html

An excerpt:

"The president's sentiments were no doubt sincere, as is his muscular pursuit of the killers. But there is still scant evidence to suggest that he condones the idea of a free press. Not since the Nixon years has an administration done as much to stymie reporters who specialize in the genre of investigative inquiry Mr. Pearl was pursuing when he was ambushed. Now as then, the administration is equally determined to thwart journalists whether they're looking into a war abroad or into possible White House favors for a lavish campaign contributor who has fallen into legal peril (Ken Lay now, Robert Vesco then).
The most chilling example involves another newspaper reporter in Central Asia, the war correspondent Doug Struck of The Washington Post. On Feb. 10 — two weeks after Americans first saw pictures of Mr. Pearl with a gun pointed at his head — Mr. Struck reached the remote spot of Zhawar, Afghanistan, to track down reports that a U.S. Hellfire missile targeting Al Qaeda operatives had instead killed villagers. By his account, Mr. Struck soon was held at gunpoint by U.S. soldiers. Their commander, after consulting with superiors by radio, told him, "If you go further, you would be shot." Once he wrote of the incident, a Pentagon spokesman tried to discredit his story, saying that Mr. Struck had only been held back for his own safety. But the Post correspondent called the Pentagon's version "an amazing lie," adding that "it shows the extremes the military is going to keep this war secret, to keep reporters from finding out what's going on."
Mr. Struck has credibility not least because his tale is part of a pattern that began on Sept. 11, when the White House spread the canard that the president had delayed his return to Washington because of a threat against Air Force One."

21

Did The Generation Change Silence Apostates?

by Englishman in

jw
friends

here is a paragraph from the1997 august 1st.watchtower re the generation change:.

"recently, 'the faithful and discreet slave' has helped us to refine our understanding of the term 'generation' used at matthew 24:34 and of the timing of the judgment of 'the sheep' and 'the goats' mentioned at matthew 25:31-46, as well as of our view toward certain types of civilian service.

no doubt some apostates would have been delighted if many of jehovah's witnesses had stuck rigidly to the previous understanding of such subjects and refused to progress.

Seeker

There are two general accusations "apostates" make against the Society, accusations that while different complement each other:

1. They need to make more changes (i.e. blood, child molestation)

2. They change too much (i.e. ever-wavering doctrines that contradict each other over time).

It is the latter general accusation that is being targeted in that article.

23

Has anyone circulated factsheet to local JW's?

by Nowfree in

jw
friends

a group of exjws in the south of the uk are considering putting together a factsheet containing information about:.

a) the wtbt involvement with united nations, .

b)the lies told by the wtbts to the court in the case of jehovah's witnesses v bulgaria in the european court of human rights.

Seeker

avengers,

The most effective method yet is alread in place: The Web.

For the first time in the history of this religion, material that shows how wrong it is can be found in the comfort and privacy of a JW's home. It works.

23

Has anyone circulated factsheet to local JW's?

by Nowfree in

jw
friends

a group of exjws in the south of the uk are considering putting together a factsheet containing information about:.

a) the wtbt involvement with united nations, .

b)the lies told by the wtbts to the court in the case of jehovah's witnesses v bulgaria in the european court of human rights.

Seeker

You know how they say a person can't benefit from therapy until they first admit to themselves that they have a problem and seek the help themselves? I think the same is true for JWs leaving. Years ago if JT and I had had a factsheet thrust into our hands it wouldn't have done a bit of good. Yet here we are now. So what happened? When we were ready for the information, we sought it out, used it and moved on.

Information is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth about the WTS. When people are emotionally ready to leave, they will leave. When they are not ready, pushing them will just drive them back into the folds of the Society.

This is just my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong. And as I said earlier there will always be anecdotal evidence that a few individuals learned the truth about the religion this way. But everything in my experience as a JW tells me that this is a method that does more harm than good. It's like trying to break JWs in a concentration camp: the harder they push, the more the JWs dig in. Those same JWs later fell away when they had the freedom to do what they wanted.

I think most people are like this. When they are ready, nothing will stop them from leaving. When they are not ready, nothing you do can force them to change. This is frustrating to us who now know better. Why can't they see the facts?, we ask. Well, they can't see the facts because the WTS has affected their thinking and prepared them precisely for the sort of tactics that are being suggested in this thread. You play right into their hands when you force this issue. When they are ready, they will be ready. You can't fight human nature.